BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Lords message (23 April) relating to the Bill considered.
	Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Lords message (23 April) relating to the Bill considered.
	Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rail Fares/Ticketing Review

Chris Evans: What progress his Department is making on its rail fares and ticketing review; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McLoughlin: We are considering a range of options to improve rail fares and ticketing, and we intend to set out our findings and next steps this summer.

Chris Evans: Commuters in Islwyn will pay three times as much as their counterparts in Scotland, whose Government are freezing off-peak rail fares next year. Do this Government plan to do the same here?

Patrick McLoughlin: We are looking at a wide range of options for ticketing and, as I said, we hope to report to the House on that in the summer. What we have in place for ticket pricing is exactly the same as under the previous Government.

Andrew Bridgen: The McNulty report identified significant costs incurred on our railways compared with those of our European counterparts. Will my right hon. Friend outline what those extra costs are?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am keen that the industry learns a lot of lessons from the McNulty report. That important report was set up by the previous Government, although it reported to us, and it has set out ways in which we need to improve the operations of the railways. However, I would point out that there are a number of tickets in this country that are cheaper than those in Europe.

Andrew Gwynne: Given that the National Audit Office has warned that higher rail fares could lead to greater profits for the train companies, why has the Secretary of State caved in to those companies by giving them permission to increase their fares by up to 5% above his so-called cap?

Patrick McLoughlin: We have had this argument before. As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members, we are following exactly the same policy as the previous Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is shouting from a sedentary position, but they changed it for one specific year. I would point out that the previous Labour Government planned that 70% of costs would be met by fare payers by 2013-14.

Alan Reid: If I try to book a train ticket from Glasgow to Sheffield, the cheapest standard single is £108. However, booking three tickets—Glasgow to Preston, Preston to Manchester, and Manchester to Sheffield—is half that cost. There is a whole host of similar examples throughout the network, so will the fares and ticketing review put a stop to such nonsense?

Patrick McLoughlin: I want the ticketing review to address several issues. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), and I will look at that situation, but I also want passengers to have more clarity about how they can take advantage of some of the cheaper fares that exist.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State look at the cost of rail travel per mile? He will know that, compared with other lines, his and my line—the midland main line, which goes through Kettering—is very expensive for rail travel per mile.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right that I know that line particularly well, and I often ask questions about it to find out what is happening over the whole rail network. However, I should point out to him that cheap deals on that particular line can be found.

Bus Travel (Young People)

Barbara Keeley: What steps he is taking to increase the affordability of bus travel for young people accessing education or training.

Norman Baker: The legislation which regulates the bus industry and which we inherited upon coming to office does not require bus operators to offer reduced fares for young people accessing education or training, although in many areas this is available, thanks to local
	authorities or operators themselves. However, this creates an unfair and confusing patchwork of fares. Young people deserve a better deal, including more consistent and affordable bus fares, and I am making this my top bus priority from now until the next election.

Barbara Keeley: That is a good thing, because the education maintenance allowance helped young people with travel costs, but this Government have abolished it, leaving them struggling. Many young people will have extra travel costs if they are to take up apprenticeships. Our constrained local transport authority, Transport for Greater Manchester, cannot manage to help with that. The Minister says that this is a priority, so will he review the position urgently, because it is stopping young people getting into education and taking up apprenticeships opportunities? Will he also look at putting some central costs in, because our local transport authority does not have the budget to help with this?

Norman Baker: The performance of local authorities and passenger transport executives across the country varies enormously. The education maintenance allowance was replaced by the 16 to 19 bursary fund—£180 million provided by the Department for Education. I am in discussions with my colleagues at that Department about access to education. With reference to access to work, the hon. Lady will be aware not only of the steps taken under the local sustainable transport fund to help access to work, but the initiative on which I have worked with bus operators to ensure that there was free access for some people out of work in January.

Louise Ellman: Will the Minister allow transport authorities to access the better bus funding scheme so that quality contracts and quality partnerships can be pursued to give young people and others a better deal?

Norman Baker: Quality contracts were on the statute book, put there by the Government that the hon. Lady supported. It was open to them to take whatever steps they wanted, but they did not take any of the steps that she is now advocating. The two schemes are not mutually exclusive. In response to an Adjournment debate a few days ago which one of her colleagues introduced, I made it plain that if operators behaved inappropriately, it would be possible for better bus area funding to be provided under those circumstances.

Road Congestion (South Essex)

Rebecca Harris: What steps his Department is taking to reduce congestion on the road network in south Essex; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Hammond: Tackling congestion as a barrier to growth is a key issue for the Department. In Essex we have invested in major schemes, such as the £63 million improvement to the Sadler’s Farm junction on the A13, funded schemes to tackle pinch points on both the strategic and the local roads, and provided £5.3 million of additional funding for maintenance in Essex to ensure that its roads are of the highest quality.

Rebecca Harris: We are grateful for the improvements that we have already seen in south Essex, but the Minister is aware of the long-running campaign for a third road off Canvey island, having visited the area himself. Local residents and local business leaders in particular think the case for a third access road is now more compelling than ever in terms of growth, because of the many business developments taking place along the Thames Gateway. Will the Minister or the Secretary of State meet me and others to discuss the business case for a third road?

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that I am well aware of her long-running campaign, and I pay tribute to her and her county councillor Ray Howard for the work that they have done on the scheme. I or my the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), would be delighted to meet her and to discuss the need for a third access road.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend will be aware that Essex council has made it a top priority to press for an extra M11 junction, 7A, into Harlow. Will my hon. Friend meet me, Essex council and relevant authorities in order that we can make the case for this important junction?

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that request. He will know that we have already committed £3 million for improvements at the A414 Clock Tower junction in his constituency in the last round of local pinch-point funding. I will, of course, be happy to accept an invitation to meet him and his colleagues about the junction on the M11.

Road Maintenance

Brian H Donohoe: What plans he has for road maintenance funding.

Stephen Hammond: The Highways Agency, which is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England, has a budget this financial year for some £750 million worth of highways maintenance, excluding the costs associated with private finance initiative projects. The Department is also providing £890 million this financial year to local highway authorities in England for highways maintenance. Funding for highways maintenance in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government.

Brian H Donohoe: Across the whole United Kingdom, potholes are appearing in all our roads because of the cuts taking place. I remember my grandmother telling me, “A stitch in time saves nine.” It is for the Government to start believing that that is a good way forward for the maintenance of our roads. It is costing local government more money in compensation for cars in accidents as a result of potholes than it would for them to repair the roads.

Stephen Hammond: I would gently point out that before local authorities start suggesting that the problem is due to cuts in the maintenance budget, they should
	recognise the more than £3 billion that this Government are giving to maintenance over the life of this Government, the £200 million given in March 2011 for severe weather, and the extra money given at the last autumn statement. The potholes review has published a number of conditions that local councils ought to meet to ensure that they do indeed follow the “stitch in time saves nine” adage from the hon. Gentleman, rather than just putting a band aid solution in place.

Stephen Mosley: In Chester, potholes have been caused by the bad weather—the freezing rain and snow we have had over the past winter, which has been a bad one. What additional help can the Minister offer my local authority to help put right the damage caused by the weather?

Stephen Hammond: I would like to be able to control the weather, but of course I cannot. It is right that the Government recognise that the pothole damage has undoubtedly been caused by the weather. That is why the Chancellor announced additional funding in the autumn statement.

Jessica Morden: Will the Minister please clarify the rather confused briefing put out a few weeks ago on funding to help ease congestion on the M4 around Newport? We have had another incident this week, so it would be really useful to know what progress is being made.

Stephen Hammond: I am not sure where the confused briefing came from, but I assume that it must be the Welsh Government, because funding for the M4 around Newport is, as the hon. Lady knows, a matter for them.

Jim Fitzpatrick: One of the lead stories on the BBC’s “Breakfast” this morning was about potholes. The National Audit Office calculates that it would be cheaper to repair our roads than to deal with the damage and injuries caused by potholes. Regardless of whether they are the result of the weather or the cuts, has the Minister had discussions with Treasury colleagues on trying to get additional funding to use those infrastructure projects to get the UK economy moving?

Stephen Hammond: I announced earlier the huge amount of money the Government are committing to highways maintenance. We have continual discussions with the Treasury on the money needed for that, and I am delighted that this Government’s settlement for highways maintenance has been better than that achieved by the previous Government. We remain committed to ensuring that potholes are repaired, and I remind local authorities of their obligations.

High Speed 2

Hugh Bayley: What obligation will be placed on any future holder of the east coast main line rail franchise to co-operate with High Speed 2 to ensure that classic compatible train services connect the north-east and York to High Speed 2.

Simon Burns: Where future rail franchises interact with HS2, we will ensure that the two are complementary.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the Government’s decision that classic compatible trains will run on the high-speed line to Leeds and then continue up the east coast main line, but the east coast train operator might well see that as unwelcome competition. Therefore, the terms of a franchise for the new east coast train operator, whoever gets it, must include a provision that allows it to profit from getting the high-speed trains running over the east coat tracks as soon as possible.

Simon Burns: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a valid and interesting point. He is absolutely right that that will have to be looked at. Fortunately, we have time on our side. I can assure him that between now and when High Speed 2 begins operating on phase 2 in 2032-33, this will be looked into fully in order to avoid the very problems he identifies.

Martin Vickers: As well as connections to York and the north-east in the new franchise, it is equally important that areas such as Grimsby and Cleethorpes are served in order to aid economic regeneration. Can the Minister assure me that he will give serious consideration to a direct service to that area in the new franchise?

Simon Burns: I seek to give my hon. Friend a partial reassurance, because I cannot prejudge at this stage in proceedings what might be in any franchise document, but I can say that there will be full consultations with relevant stakeholders and others before the document is finally put together so that all the issues, desires and wish lists can be fully considered.

Angus MacNeil: Is the Minister aware that every year there is no high-speed rail connection between south and central England and Scotland is a year when both economies underperform? Recent studies at the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto have identified that two of the world’s 40 co-called mega-regions are in the United Kingdom and that good, fast rail connections would benefit both. When will a date be set for that key infrastructure, as I am particularly keen that England should keep up with Scotland after we become independent?

Simon Burns: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last October that the Government are investigating whether there should be a phase 3 for High Speed 2, from Leeds and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh. We look forward to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supporting us as we put forward the proposals and the legislation for establishing High Speed 2, which will bring so much benefit not only to England, but to Scotland and Wales.

Andrew Jones: The private sector has a record of significant investment and innovation in our railways and of growing the numbers of people using them. When does the Minister expect the east coast main line to return to the private sector?

Simon Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in his statement to the House on 26 March, the east coast main line will return to a franchise operation.

Ian Mearns: Scandalous!

Simon Burns: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s cry, that was, of course, the intended policy of the previous Labour Secretary of State and the previous Labour Minister for Transport. We anticipate that the line will return to a franchise operation by February 2015.

Maria Eagle: Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to prioritise a completely unnecessary and costly competition for the east coast main line rail franchise, which will also require him to waste taxpayers’ money on expensive extensions to other contracts, some for as long as four years?

Simon Burns: I am afraid that the premise of the shadow Secretary of State’s question is factually incorrect and misguided. The reason why we are moving the east coast main line back to a franchise is exactly the same—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady should stop chuntering.

Barry Sheerman: Answer the question.

Simon Burns: I am answering the question. The reason why we are moving the line back to a franchise is exactly the same as why the shadow Secretary of State’s right honourable friend Lord Adonis was going to do it when he said:
	“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
	Nor do we, and that is why we are ending it.

Maria Eagle: It does not sound like the Minister actually knows what is happening on the east coast main line: 3 million more seats, best ever punctuality, lowest taxpayer subsidy, £40 million of extra profit invested and £800 million returned to the taxpayer. He should stop talking it down. Will he confirm that all of the planned east coast upgrade—all the investment that his hon. and right hon. Friends claim is necessary—will be paid for by the taxpayer? None of this investment is dependent on privatisation. The fact is that private train companies now receive more from the taxpayer each year than they pay back in, so why is he doing this?

Simon Burns: I sometimes wonder which world the shadow Secretary of State lives in. If she would just do us all a favour and listen for one minute, I will offer her an explanation. First, the premium that the east coast main line pays to the Treasury is less than that paid by the west coast main line. Secondly, if the hon. Lady looks at reliability over the latest four-week period, she will see that the east coast main line is the worst of the 19 operators. Thirdly, we have found that the operator did a reasonable job in difficult circumstances when it had to take over the direct operation, but that it has now reached a plateau. Fourthly, yes, there will be taxpayers’ money involved in investing in the east coast main line, but, more importantly, the involvement of the private sector means that we can increase, over and above the taxpayers’ money, the money that can be invested in enhancing and improving the service for passengers.

High Speed 2

Lyn Brown: What steps he plans to take to address the effects of High Speed 2 on London; and whether he has assessed the case for Crossrail 2.

Simon Burns: HS2 Ltd is carrying out an environmental impact assessment on the London-west midlands phase of HS2 to look at the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The aim is to consult on a draft environmental statement shortly.
	The Government have made no decision on Crossrail 2, and it is currently unfunded. Under devolution, the Mayor and Transport for London are responsible for transport in London, including the route options for Crossrail 2.

Lyn Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer. Following about £1 billion-worth of investment, Stratford has an international train station but, sadly, it currently has no stopping international trains. Given that investment, Stratford should surely be a transport hub, fully interconnecting HS1, HS2, Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2 with domestic and underground services. That would not only provide superb interconnectivity, but relieve stress on central London terminals. Will the Minister provide leadership?

Simon Burns: I always try to provide leadership, Mr Speaker. I fully understand the valid point that the hon. Lady makes, but there are consideration problems with her proposition. HS2 Ltd did consider whether Stratford should be the primary terminus for HS2 services and others. Its advice was that locating the principal HS2 terminus outside central London would not meet the needs of the majority of the passengers who will use the service or make best use of the wider London transport network. There would also be physical problems with the need to build an additional 10 platforms, given the geographic size of the site at Stratford.

Christopher Pincher: My concerns about HS2 will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend, but is he surprised at the concerns of UKIP, which, quite apart from believing that every last Bulgarian and Romanian is about to hitchhike their way to London, is opposed to HS2, whereas in 2010 it did not support just one high-speed line, but three?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. As you will know as a politician yourself, Mr Speaker, if one makes promises, they must have some validity and credibility, and one must have the ability to fund them. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the UKIP manifesto at the last election, which you probably read more than most of us, Mr Speaker, stated that it would:
	“Invest in three new 200mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham”.
	It really is extraordinary—

Mr Speaker: Order. We will leave it there, although I have much enjoyed it. The Minister of State has many important responsibilities and no one in this House would disagree with the proposition that he always tries,
	which he advanced a few moments ago, but one thing for which he has no responsibility is the promises and policies of the United Kingdom Independence party.

Lilian Greenwood: There is a growing view that by the time the second phase of HS2 is complete, Crossrail 2 will be essential to cope with the additional passengers travelling through Euston station. Is the Minister content that last week’s revised plan for Euston addresses that problem, or will the DFT now take the sensible step of assessing fully the case for Crossrail 2?

Simon Burns: As the hon. Lady knows, Crossrail 2 is the responsibility of the Mayor of London because it is a devolved matter. However, I accept that there is a knock-on effect for other rail services that are wholly the responsibility of the DFT. The Mayor of London announced recently that there will be a full consultation process. We await that and look forward to seeing any business case or justification. Those matters will be considered in due course, but we have to go through the due processes first.

John Pugh: I was sentenced to two years on the Crossrail Bill Committee. HS2 is jam tomorrow; Crossrail is £6 billion now. Isn’t enough money spent on London proportionately at the moment?

Simon Burns: I strongly believe that there is an overwhelming case for high-speed rail in this country. Indeed, I would go further and say that we cannot afford not to have high-speed rail. I regret, as much as I suspect the hon. Gentleman does, going by his question, the length of time that it takes to establish any major project in this country, because it is not in the country’s best interests. However, it is certainly in the national interest to press ahead with a high-speed rail network throughout the country.

Road Signs

Pauline Latham: What steps he is taking to reduce sign clutter on roads.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Government are committed to reducing sign clutter. I recently wrote to English local authorities to encourage them to take action, and I have sponsored an award to encourage the reduction of sign clutter. The Department will be revising traffic sign regulations and general directions to provide local authorities with far more discretion about where and when they place traffic signs.

Pauline Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On a recent visit to Vietnam, I noted that the communist Government there put up propaganda signs all over the place. Similarly, Derby city council puts up signs showing anti-Government propaganda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money?

Patrick McLoughlin: I, too, regularly see those signs, and one must wonder why we are seeing such signs around Derby city at a time when the council is saying that it
	does not have enough money for other essential services, and when it has just increased council tax. That is unlike Derbyshire county council, which also serves my hon. Friend’s constituency but has had a 0% rise in council tax. That is an important message for the people of Derbyshire about where money is being spent.

Electric Vehicles

Duncan Hames: What plans he has for incentives to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles.

Norman Baker: The Government is committed to supporting the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles, and has allocated up to £400 million for that, out to 2015, including £82 million for research and development activities, £30 million for plugged-in places infrastructure pilots and £300 million to support motorists with the plug-in car and van grants. On 19 February we also announced a £37 million package of further grants for a national recharging infrastructure, and later this year we will be publishing a document setting out our strategic approach to supporting the uptake of ULEVs.

Duncan Hames: The take-up of electric vehicles is accelerating but from low initial levels. Among those grants, would the Minister consider support for a national rapid charging network to encourage the transition to electric vehicles by motorists?

Norman Baker: Take-up is in line with our anticipation, and as is always the case with new technology, the graph shows a slow start and a rapid increase thereafter. We are seeing more rapid charging points established across the country, including by the private sector which is showing a healthy and very welcome appetite to install such points.

Rail Links (London/South Coast)

Simon Kirby: What steps his Department is taking to improve rail links between London and the south coast.

Norman Baker: Significant investment is currently being undertaken to improve rail links between London and the south coast. By 2018, the £6 billion Thameslink programme will be complete, providing more capacity for passengers with a new fleet of trains, and London Bridge station will be re-developed and transformed.

Simon Kirby: Does the Minister agree with me and many other people in Brighton and Hove that the only sustainable solution for increased capacity is to build a second line?

Norman Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is pressure on the existing line. It is very full up during many of the peak hours, and that also affects train performance on that line, which I know he is concerned about. I certainly think there is a case for looking at capacity issues in a novel way between London and the south coast, and the Secretary of State and I hope to take that matter forward in due course.

Motorway Speed Limit

Sarah Champion: What recent discussions he has had on increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McLoughlin: Work is continuing to assess the potential economic, safety and environmental impacts of trialling 80 mph speed limits across a number of sites on the motorway network. It is important that decisions are made on the basis of sound evidence, and as part of that I have had discussions with a number of bodies.

Sarah Champion: The Highways Agency proposes to expand its managed motorways programme so that the hard shoulder between junctions 32 and 35A of the M1 will be used as a permanent traffic lane, with the scheme running 24 hours rather than at peak congestion times, as other schemes do. Does the Minister share my concern, and that of local authorities, South Yorkshire safer roads campaign, and South Yorkshire police, that that proposal, especially at 80 miles per hour, will create a real safety issue?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am obviously willing to hear any representations about the managed motorway scheme that we are progressing. We have found that where we have managed motorways, we have a better flow of traffic and safer statistics overall for the use of that particular road. These are important matters and I am more than happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Lady. I assure her that we are trying to increase capacity for her constituents and other people who use that very important motorway.

David Nuttall: But does the Secretary of State agree that retaining a 70 mph limit on our motorways and not strictly enforcing it risks bringing the law into disrepute, and that it would be far better to have an 80 mph limit that is enforced?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend makes one of the many arguments for an increase. The 70 mph limit was set in 1965, and it is fair to say that, since then, there has been a great improvement overall in road safety, but I want to look at all those issues.

John Leech: The human cost in lives, the economic cost of infrastructure changes and the environmental impact of carbon emissions are surely all good enough reasons to rule out once and for all any increase in the speed limit.

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said in the replies I have just given, I am not ruling that out—I am looking at it. The hon. Gentleman makes important arguments that go the other way. It is not a straightforward issue.

Train Stations

James Morris: What funding his Department is providing for new train stations; and if he will make a statement.

Patrick McLoughlin: In March, I made an announcement of three stations that are likely to secure funding from the £20 million new station fund—Ilkeston, Lea Bridge, and Pye Corner. I expect to make another announcement in May. The Government also provide funding to local authorities through the major local transport scheme budgets and the local sustainable transport fund. Those funds can also be used to provide new railway stations.

James Morris: Rowley Regis station in my constituency provides a vital link for commuters into Birmingham and the surrounding area, but the car parking facilities at the station have reached capacity. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Centro representatives to push forward on the vital project to expand car parking facilities so that commuters do not have to park on residential streets?

Patrick McLoughlin: Recent research by the Association of Train Operating Companies shows that the number of rail journeys in and around Birmingham has increased by more than 20% in the past five years. It is one of 14 cities to record double-digit growth. In a way, I am not surprised to hear of the problems that that is causing for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and I am more than happy to meet him and Centro to discuss the matter.

Alison Seabeck: High-quality transport gateways to our towns and cities are vital in supporting regeneration and growth. Plymouth is a case in point—Network Rail’s buildings there are appalling. Given that Network Rail says that it is more reactive than proactive, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage development, and to encourage Network Rail to take commercial advantage of some of its sites?

Patrick McLoughlin: That is obviously an ongoing, regular discussion I have with Network Rail. I will visit Plymouth in the next few weeks. That is one of the things I will look at and, subsequently, discuss with Network Rail.

Topical Questions

Harriett Baldwin: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: Since I last addressed the House at Transport questions, I have appointed members of the franchising advisory panel. I announced in my last statement that Richard Brown will be the chairman. The other members will be Nicola Shaw, chief executive officer of High Speed 1 Ltd; Stephen Paine, managing director of UK investment banking at UBS; Martin Buck, the commercial director of Crossrail; and Michael Holden, chief executive officer of Directly Operated Railways and chairman of East Coast—[Interruption.] For the benefit of the shadow Leader of the House, Nicola Shaw is on the panel. That panel of experts will meet on a monthly basis and help provide reassurance that the franchising programme is on track, and that the correct governance will be followed.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Secretary of State for the money he has put in for the pinch-point between the A46 and the M5. In other A46 news, a local village has discovered that fibre optic cable runs along it, and has connected some of the local homes to it. Will the Secretary of State consider asking the Highways Agency to publish information on all roads on the network that have fibre optic cable along them?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is important that we make proper use of all the infrastructure available, particularly in respect of bodies such as the Highways Agency. My understanding is that the agency makes details of the current fibre optic communication network available to any interested party, but following my hon. Friend’s points, I will speak to the agency and see whether we can do more.

Hugh Bayley: What help are the Government giving to smaller local authorities away from metropolitan areas, to introduce smart ticketing to make bus journeys more convenient and cheaper, and to get more people on to buses?

Norman Baker: We have seen a significant roll-out of smart ticketing, but I agree that it is more difficult for small local authority areas. The Department for Transport budget allocates £15 million to pick up on small bus operators in particular, to ensure that they are not left behind and to retain diversity of supply in the bus industry.

George Hollingbery: Will the Secretary of State update the House on any discussions he may have had with the Mayor of London with regard to suburban railway services in the south-east?

Patrick McLoughlin: I met with the Mayor of London yesterday and had a wide-ranging discussion on many subjects relating to London and other areas. What I have always said is that in principle I have nothing against wider franchising, but I need to see that there is proper accountability. Discussions are ongoing.

Kate Green: As we approach the spending review, will the Secretary of State give careful consideration to the need to secure funding for the extension of the Metrolink in Greater Manchester through Trafford Park in my constituency?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will take that as one of many bids we will receive. I am very keen to invest in infrastructure for the long term, and various local authorities are putting forward a number of schemes. They will all be assessed and judged, and decisions will be made in light of the resources available.

Ben Gummer: The Minister and the Secretary of State will know that the world’s largest financial centre is connected by the great eastern main line to some of the leading centres of research and development in the country, yet commuters and travellers can expect to use rolling stock that was unsuitable for travellers on the west
	coast main line 10 years ago. The Government have invested heavily in infrastructure. When will they be able to invest in rolling stock, too?

Simon Burns: As my hon. Friend says, there is considerable interest in upgrading the rolling stock in East Anglia, and of course I have a particular interest too. My ministerial colleagues—I stress that—are currently considering what might be included in the specification for the interim franchise that will run to 2016, and our priority is, as always, improving passenger satisfaction as well as obtaining value for money for the taxpayer.

Barry Sheerman: May I press the Secretary of State to provide me some evidence? I started off as a supporter of HS2. I attended a seminar in this House this week that predicted that it would cost £50 billion. What is the evidence that this will be a good investment for the towns and cities of the midlands and the north?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be questioning this. People do inflate figures. I believe that the figures, with which I have been very open with the House, remain as the figures. I believe the changes that HS2 will bring—the first new railway line built north of London in 120 years—will provide an important impetus for economic growth for the United Kingdom.

Anne McIntosh: The A64 is an extremely dangerous and highly congested road serving businesses along the route right through Thirsk and Malton between York, Filey and Scarborough. Will it qualify for a pinch-point scheme, and what other criteria will it need to meet?

Stephen Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She will know that the criteria for pinch-point funds were set out with regard to the first three rounds. They fall under a certain financial limit and are completed by March 2015. We are in discussions on how further tranches will work in terms of the extension of the date of completion. I am convinced that given the record of the A64—one of the criteria is safety—it will be looked on favourably.

Ian Mearns: The east coast main line has returned £640 million to the public purse since 2009. Sadly, private ownership has failed the travelling public of the east coast franchise. What possible public benefit can be gained by another wasteful and expensive round of refranchising, when east coast is already where the vast majority of the public want it, in public ownership?

Patrick McLoughlin: I point the hon. Gentleman to what was said by the last Labour Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) who now sits on the Opposition Front Bench. It is worth pointing out that National Express paid £185 million in 2007-08, £145 million in 2008-09 and £8 million in 2009-10, which is when the franchise ended. The way that the track excess charges were calculated was then changed, so direct comparisons are not valid.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend has been exceptionally communicative and has taken the time to discuss HS2 and the route with the constituencies affected, but that is in stark contrast to HS2 Ltd, which still has not responded to a letter I sent it on 22 February. Does he agree that a Government agency, such as HS2 Ltd, should at the very least be engaging more proactively with Members of Parliament?

Simon Burns: Yes, I do. HS2 Ltd’s policy is to reply substantively to all letters from Members within 20 working days. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend did not receive a reply to his letter. I have been informed by HS2 Ltd that a response and an apology have now been issued and that its procedures for handling correspondence with hon. Members have been looked at again to ensure that this sort of problem does not arise.

Alison McGovern: An investigation by the Liverpool Echo last month discovered that the cost of catching a bus in Merseyside has risen by two and a half times the rate of inflation since privatisation under the Thatcher Government. The cost of public transport in Merseyside is a barrier to employment and makes the labour market less flexible. Will the Minister congratulate the Echo on its work and tell us what he proposes to do about it?

Norman Baker: Sadly, bus fares have been rising above inflation for many decades, including throughout the Labour Government, from 1997 to 2010, although some of these bus fares are determined locally by support from local authorities, so the picture varies across the country. The good news, however, is that overall bus mileage is holding up. In fact, last year saw a record 4.7 billion bus journeys, the highest since deregulation.

Phillip Lee: Many of my constituents work in and use both Heathrow and Gatwick airports, which is one reason I would firmly support the expansion of both. We are awaiting Howard Davies’s report into Heathrow expansion, but would the Minister consider his Department’s investigating the feasibility of a superfast maglev line, such as that seen in Shanghai, to link these two essential airports?

Simon Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It would be premature at this stage to give the sort of assurances he wants, because it is part and parcel of the whole issue of capacity in the south-east and so is a matter for the Davies commission as part its wider inquiry into the future of airports and capacity.

Sheila Gilmore: In answer to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Secretary of State said that he made decisions based on evidence. Why is that not being applied in relation to the east coast franchising, given that we have had two failures of the private sector and now experience of a good service?

Patrick McLoughlin: The evidence was supported by the fact that we have seen huge growth in the railways since privatisation 20 years ago. Since then, there have
	been 13 years of Labour Government, and they did not reverse it—in fact, they enhanced and pushed forward the franchising. The last Labour Secretary of State said that franchising was a good thing. I believe he was right and that passengers benefit from it.

Pauline Latham: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the dreadful congestion on the A38, particularly around the Markeaton and Little Eaton roundabouts in my constituency? It is causing misery to my constituents and Derbyshire residents.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think that my hon. Friend lives closer to the Little Eaton island and I to the Markeaton island, so we both know of the regular delays on that very important road. On the pinch-point funds, I am pleased that we will see some improvements this month—as she will know, work has already started on preparing the site for those improvements. I have met the leader of Derby city council, and I know that my hon. Friend has met the Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). We are looking at this issue, but it is a very big scheme.

Ian Lavery: Two weeks ago, Lord Adonis published a report on the north-east local enterprise partnerships suggesting that political consideration should be given to the extension of the Tyne and Wear metro into south-east Northumberland. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and interested parties to discuss that possibility and other possibilities for railway links from south-east Northumberland into the cities of the north-east?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is calling Lord Adonis in support; other people were attacking what he did when he was Secretary of State. I am aware of the report and was in the north-east a few months ago. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss some of the important points within that report.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

House Business Committee

Simon Hughes: what progress has been made on bringing forward proposals to set up a House business committee to consider Government business as set out in the Coalition Agreement.

Andrew Lansley: I continue to consider proposals and will be discussing some practical proposals to meet this challenge when I give evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee next month.

Simon Hughes: Both coalition parties have a commitment to transfer more power over business from the Executive to Members of the House of Commons. Given that we made a commitment in the coalition agreement that this
	should happen by the third year of the Parliament, may I have a guarantee that, in this year—2013—and in the next, and third Session, that will be done?

Andrew Lansley: The House will understand that any House business committee would need to add value to our existing processes. I hope that my right hon. Friend and others across the House will recognise that we have made substantial progress in that direction already in this Parliament, not least through the creation of the Back Bench Business Committee. I want to make sure that we build on that and that it is not compromised, while meeting the requirement for responsive and effective business management and recognising—as the Wright Committee did—the opportunity for the Government to secure their legislative programme.

Thomas Docherty: I am sure that the whole House is overwhelmed to hear that one member of the Cabinet is interested in the views of Select Committees; perhaps the Leader of the House could have a word with the Secretary of State for Education about the merits of that. This is yet another handbrake turn and broken promise by the coalition. What is the delay? The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats supports it and the Government Chief Whip is a vocal supporter of a House business committee, so who is holding it up?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his implication. As I said in my previous answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I am considering these proposals, discussing them with colleagues and looking at the practical issues. When I visited the Scottish Parliament during the February recess, I saw in its parliamentary bureau what is to all intents and purposes a House business committee. When one looks at how that works, Back Bench Members in this House already have considerably more influence and control over the scope of debate than Members of the Scottish Parliament. It is not about creating a thing with a title; it is about delivering the objective.

Philip Hollobone: A House business committee would timetable business in this House. Were there to be a rule that it must facilitate Government business—and given that its make-up is likely to reflect the balance of parties in this place, that it was a firm part of the coalition agreement when other things were dropped, and that we have had three years to sort it out—should there not be a firm commitment in the Queen’s Speech on 8 May?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is making assumptions about the character of a House business committee based on the Wright Committee recommendations, which are being considered by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to which I am sure he will be giving his views. It is important to recognise that among the evidence that the Committee has already received is evidence about the impracticality of implementing the Wright Committee recommendations as first set out, not least because we have already made progress in the Back Bench Business Committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Cycling

Fiona Mactaggart: If he will review the level of provision for cyclists who regularly commute to the Palace of Westminster.

John Thurso: Parliament’s green travel plan will be reviewed annually, with a green travel survey conducted every two years. As part of that, the provision of facilities for cyclists on the parliamentary estate was reviewed in 2012, in consultation with the all-party group on cycling and the parliamentary bicycle users’ group. As a result, 150 additional bicycle parking spaces were provided on the estate—a 60% increase—including 60 additional covered spaces. The House recently introduced a cycle-to-work salary sacrifice scheme for House staff, alongside the existing cycle loan scheme for staff.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as though things have got much better, but in practice either people have to be much stronger than I am to work the new racks in most of the covered spaces or they are blocked up by people who do not commute every day. Will he please meet with regular commuters to the House to see whether we can put in place mechanisms to ensure that they have access to covered bicycle parking spaces?

John Thurso: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would be delighted to have that meeting to discuss the issue she raises. Let me assure her that the House would certainly wish to ensure that the spaces that have been provided are properly used and available for bicycle users.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Statutory Instruments (Scrutiny)

Anne McIntosh: Whether he plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments; and if he will make a statement.

Tom Brake: The Government have no current plans to review the arrangements for scrutiny of statutory instruments.

Anne McIntosh: I am particularly disappointed by that reply. The House prides itself on scrutiny of legislation, but the weakness of the system is scrutiny of statutory instruments, whether to implement primary legislation or, more especially, to transpose EU directives in UK law. Will the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House please look carefully at allowing Members of Parliament not just to vote for or against a statutory instrument but to amend the very text of those instruments?

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know this is a matter that she has been pursuing vigorously. The issue with her proposal for statutory instruments is that the two Houses could end up amending a statutory instrument in different ways. There would then need to be a reconciliation process, very similar to a Bill handling process, so there are concerns about what she suggests. If she has not already done so, she may want to raise the matter with the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

Ann Coffey: The Cabinet Office used to give us the direct numbers of private ministerial offices. This year, we were given only the number of the main departmental switchboards. This week I had a very unhelpful experience when I tried to get some information about the progress of a regulation from a particular Department. Can—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I must confess that I am struggling to see the precise relevance of her supplementary question to the issue of scrutiny of statutory instruments. Maybe she was coming on to it.

Ann Coffey: Yes, the regulation was one that I was attempting to scrutinise the progress of, but I could not do so because of that unhelpful experience. Can the Deputy Leader of the House look into why we are now longer given the numbers of private ministerial offices, so that Members of Parliament such as me can do our jobs in scrutinising not only the regulations that are laid, but those that are about to be laid?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which she related ingeniously to the issue of statutory instruments. I have heard her concerns and will ensure she gets a written response to her question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Electric Vehicles (Charging Facilities)

Duncan Hames: What provision the Commission is making for the charging of electric-powered vehicles on the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: There are two charging points, which are sponsored by EDF, in the underground car park for official Government cars. There are also recharging points for electric scooters and motorcycles installed in the House of Lords areas of the Palace of Westminster. Members who belong to the Source London network may use the charging facilities provided by Source London in Abingdon car park, situated underneath Abingdon green. No further provision has yet been made for the charging of electric-powered vehicles on the parliamentary estate, although the House authorities will continue to keep this under review.

Duncan Hames: I certainly hope that the House authorities will continue to keep the matter under review, as the vast majority of us in this place have no hope of ever being able to use the electric charge points for official Government cars. My hon. Friend may have heard Transport Ministers saying earlier that the private sector was racing ahead in the provision of electric charging points. I hope he might bear that in mind when considering whether more can be done on the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the debate taking place at 1.30 this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the Transport Select Committee’s report, “Plug-in vehicles, plugged in policy”? The report contains an extremely good exposé of why the wide variety of vehicle plug-in types makes it difficult to know which to install. That is the core problem, but once the House knows what should be installed, I am sure that we will do our utmost to install it.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Member Support

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to ensure that the House of Commons facilitates the highest level of support to enable hon. Members to represent their constituents effectively.

Tom Brake: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House continues to work closely with colleagues on the House of Commons Commission to ensure that Members are fully supported by excellent staff and have the necessary facilities to carry out their duties effectively. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, responsibility for day-to-day pay and allowances, including pay for MPs’ staff, is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Barry Sheerman: I have raised this matter here before with the Leader of the House. The fact is that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which the House of Commons is being run at the moment. Many Members are dissatisfied with the withdrawal of many services across the piece, in Portcullis House and elsewhere. We also know that the good staff who serve us in our daily work and who do such a good job are totally disillusioned with the way in which this place is being managed. There is a management ethos that this place should be run as a business, but it is not a business. Because of the sittings and the hours, it can never be run as a business, so let us get back to its being run by dedicated staff who should be well treated and well looked after. We must ensure that we look after them because it is essential that we should be able to do our job for our constituents and for our country.

Tom Brake: I certainly agree that the House has excellent staff, and we should do everything we can to ensure that they continue to work effectively on our
	behalf. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about a specific aspect of staffing, he might find it appropriate to raise the matter with the House of Commons Commission, from which I am sure he will get a suitably informed response.

Gerald Kaufman: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), may I draw to the Deputy Leader of the House’s attention the fact that the service desk in Portcullis House is no longer staffed? At whatever time of day one goes there for advice or to find out the location of a meeting room, there is no one there to help. I have consulted the police in Portcullis House several times, and they have been extremely helpful, but the do not always have the necessary information. I have therefore been seriously inconvenienced in the pursuit of my constituents’ interests, and I am not alone in that. Will the hon. Gentleman take action now to restore the staffing of the service desk in Portcullis House?

Tom Brake: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I must point out that that is not a ministerial responsibility. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that its representatives will be listening carefully to this exchange and that they will want to take suitable action.

Government Expenditure (Parliamentary Scrutiny)

Christopher Pincher: What plans he has to improve the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of Government expenditure.

Andrew Lansley: The Government are keen to promote better financial scrutiny and would welcome discussions on how best that can be achieved. As Leader of the House, I hope that I can work with colleagues in the Liaison Committee and across Government to ensure that the scrutiny of Government expenditure in this House promotes efficiency and value for money in all Departments.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I press him further and ask whether he sees a role not only for the Public Accounts Committee but for Select Committees in scrutinising Government and departmental expenditure?

Andrew Lansley: I do indeed see such a role. Select Committees have a responsibility in relation not only to the policy of the Departments that they scrutinise but to the Departments’ expenditure. It is fair to say, however, that there is a variable focus among Select Committees on the extent to which they scrutinise the expenditure of their Departments, but I hope that we can increase the extent of that scrutiny through the Estimates process. Also, as a member of the Public Accounts Commission, I know from the matters that we have discussed with the National Audit Office that the NAO has already made itself available to some Select Committees to help them with that process, and I hope that we can encourage more of that in future.

Devolution

Harriett Baldwin: What assessment he has made of the Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of Commons.

Tom Brake: The McKay commission reported on 25 March on how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only part of the UK. This is a very important issue, which is why the Government asked this expert commission to look at it. The report makes a helpful contribution, and we will give it very serious consideration before responding substantively.

Harriett Baldwin: I look forward to that response. I would like to know whether the Leader of the House intends to act on those proposals in the next Session of Parliament.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that she has pursued this matter vigorously in recent months. Clearly, the McKay commission has produced a serious report. It has a menu of options contained within it, and the Government will want to consider the recommendations very carefully before coming to any firm conclusions.

Mr Speaker: Time is against us, but I am determined to find time for the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Apprentices

Robert Halfon: What estimate the Commission has made of the number of apprentices employed in the House of Commons supply chain.

John Thurso: I said in my answer of 28 February that discussions with a number of major contractors such as Royal Mail suggest that they operate apprenticeship schemes within their larger businesses, but I do not have an accurate number on how many of them are in the House. Most of the procurement exercises conducted by the House administration are subject to a legal regime imposed by the European public procurement directives, which limit the conditions that the House can impose. The House administration is committed to providing apprenticeships, paid internships and encouragement for young people from all backgrounds. The apprenticeship scheme of the Clerk of the House, to be launched in the summer, will give added impetus to those efforts.

Robert Halfon: Will my hon. Friend give strong support to the apprenticeship scheme started by the senior Clerk of the House, which will give many apprentices across the country the chance to work in the House of Commons? Will he link that scheme with the parliamentary apprenticeship scheme, which I set up with New Deal of the Mind, so that we can all work together on this issue?

John Thurso: I would be delighted to commit myself and the authorities to that support. The intention of the Clerk’s scheme, shortly to be launched, is to offer 10 paid placements of 12 months’ duration leading to an NVQ. I commend it to everyone in the House.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House make some comments today about future business?

Andrew Lansley: With the progress of business now certain, a formal announcement was made yesterday evening in the other place on the arrangements for Prorogation. It may be to the convenience of the House if I indicated that I expect royal commissioners to attend the other place this afternoon to signify Royal Assent to several Bills and to prorogue Parliament until Wednesday 8 May.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that there will be a Queen’s Speech on 8 May. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all staff of the House for their support during this Session. We prorogue today, giving Members the opportunity to get some much-needed exercise campaigning in the local elections next week. I just hope that the Leader of the House will not be in a Conservative battle bus driven by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), because she told the House this week that Sunderland was near Bolton.
	In the last few days of this Session, the Government have had to throw a series of cherished policies overboard to save their Bills from falling in the Lords. They have caved in on trying to abolish the general equality duty, on caste discrimination, on the pension age of Ministry of Defence police and fire officers, on licensing letting agents and the free market free-for-all on conservatories. In the battle over the Chancellor’s “shares for rights scheme”, they managed to spark two revolts in the Lords by two previous Lib Dem leaders and four former Tory Cabinet Ministers, including a previous Tory Chancellor. Lord Forsyth, the Thatcherite former Scottish Secretary said the scheme was
	“ill thought through, confused and muddled”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 597.],
	while the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell asked:
	“in the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver. Is it now £2,000?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 617.]
	The Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that the cost of the Chancellor’s folly will be nearly £1 billion, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it could “foster tax avoidance”. The Chancellor’s pet scheme was saved by an eleventh-hour compromise last night, but when will he realise that it is simply wrong to put a price on people’s right to be treated fairly at work?
	Reflecting on the current Session, I calculated that up to this morning the Government had U-turned 21 times, an average of once every seven sitting days. The Leader of the House has just announced another U-turn, on the House Business Committee. I wonder whether we shall see even more in the next Session. That may be a promise that the Government considered for the Queen’s Speech: it is probably the only target that they could actually meet. I hope that the Leader of the House will
	not mind my borrowing a well-worn phrase as a piece of advice for the Government: “You turn again if you want to”—and the sooner the better.
	We now know that of the 10 original members of the Downing street policy unit only three remain, and apparently two of those are actively seeking other work. So great is the exodus that Conservative Back Benchers are complaining that No. 10 resembles the Mary Celeste, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has more advisers than the boss. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to come and make a statement about the Government’s policy on emergency support for sinking ships?
	In a desperate attempt to reverse his fortunes, the Prime Minister has just announced that the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) is to be given a job at No. 10. The problem is that the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers think that he has got the wrong brother, and that it is the top job at No.10 that the Johnson dynasty really want. Meanwhile, sources tell us that the latest round of proposed spending cuts has caused such a backlash that Cabinet Ministers are turning on each other in a circular firing squad. They cannot even organise a firing squad properly.
	On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics released the latest public sector net borrowing figures. They were a quarter of 1% lower than last year’s—and that is only after the most blatant piece of creative accounting at the Treasury that we have seen for a very long time. We now know that the Government are set to borrow £245 billion more than they planned to borrow in 2010. That is the cost of their economic failure.
	The Chancellor’s deficit reduction plan has been so successful that, at the rate he is going, it will take 400 years to balance the books. If we look back 400 years, we see that the gunpowder plot had just failed, the King James Bible was newly published, and the pilgrim fathers were preparing to set sail for north America. Can the Leader of the House promise a debate in the new Session on the abject failure of the Chancellor’s economic plan? Today’s anaemic GDP figures show that we are back to where we were six months ago.
	This week the Chancellor told John Humphrys that he had shed a tear while listening to the headlines on the “Today” programme. Can the Leader of the House tell us which headlines he meant? Was it the IMF describing his economic plan as “playing with fire”? Was it the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that we were in a depression? Was it yet another ratings agency stripping us of our triple A status? Or was it the Chancellor’s poll ratings, which are plummeting among his own Back Benchers?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for, in particular, expressing her appreciation for the House service, which I share. At the end of a parliamentary Session, we should express our appreciation especially for those who support us in the carrying on of the Business of the Chamber—the Clerks at the Table, in the Table Office and in the Public Bill Office, those who look after us in the Chamber, and of course the Official Reporters. The list of those on whom we depend is very long, and we are very grateful to them.
	I am not in a position to comment on business to be conducted during the next Session, but in the current Session we have completed the passage of a substantial amount of important legislation. Some 27 Bills have been passed, including three that were carried over from the first Session to the second. Important measures were introduced, such as the Justice and Security Bill, the establishment of the National Crime Agency in the Crime and Courts Bill, individual voter registration, the new green investment bank, the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, and of course just this week the Succession to the Crown Bill.
	At previous business questions, the shadow Leader of the House has asked about the publication of legislation in draft. In this Session, we published 15 Bills in draft, which is more than in any previous Session, including the two-year Session that preceded this one. To that extent I hope, we have continued a process established in this Parliament by my predecessor of ensuring that the House, the public and stakeholders have the greatest possible opportunity for input and contribution to the passage of legislation.
	The shadow Leader of the House raised a number of issues. I know that the Prime Minister was thinking of the right Johnson when he engaged my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in policy making. It is not just about my hon. Friend, but about other Government Members; there is a difference. In the Liberal Democrat party, for their purposes, and in the Conservative party, elected Members of the party democratically take part in the discussion of policy, and contribute directly to policy. Labour policy is directed to Members by the trade unions. We have it from a former general secretary of the Labour party himself, who said of the trade unions that they were
	“running rings around him”
	—the Leader of the Opposition—
	“and soon will control much of the party.”
	He says that they control the selection of MEPs. They are the piper who calls the Labour party tune. In the last quarter, Len McCluskey and Unite paid a third of the Labour party’s total income—just that single trade union. Is it any surprise that it wants to go from controlling candidate selection to controlling the policy of the Labour party and who is on the Opposition Front Bench? I am sure the shadow Leader of the House is safe, but some of her colleagues are not. In the next Session, we shall see what the consequence may be in terms of changes on the Opposition Front Bench.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In light of the imminent end of this parliamentary Session, I gently remind hon. and right hon. Members that somewhat greater ingenuity than normal will be required if their business questions are to be in order, bearing in mind, as they will, that those questions must relate to future business of the House. Perhaps we can be offered a textbook example of the genre by Mr William Cash.

William Cash: I shall certainly try, Mr Speaker.
	Last Saturday, 30,000 people gathered in Stafford regarding the outcome of the Francis report on the whole Stafford hospital saga; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tragedy. The Prime Minister has given
	his personal assurance that there will be a debate in due course. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House prepared to make sure that it happens much sooner rather than much later?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend knows that I am very well aware indeed of the situation at Stafford and all the circumstances that led to it. He will recall that the Backbench Business Committee very importantly secured a debate on NHS transparency and accountability. In response to his questions, I have made clear my view that once we have gone beyond the interim report made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, there should be occasions in the future, when the Government make a formal response to the public inquiry held by Robert Francis, for the House to have further opportunity to debate it.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1304?
	[That this House expresses its utter condemnation of and disgust with Bernard Rowen of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Limited for his repeated victimisation of a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, whom he has dismissed twice without any valid justification; deplores slanderous statements made by management about this constituent; calls for the immediate reinstatement of this constituent and for his victimisation to cease; further calls instead for the dismissal of Bernard Rowen, who is not fit for this publicly-funded job; further calls on the Charities Commission to investigate the conduct of this organisation; further calls on the operating partners (Community Transport Services Manager, Manchester City Council, Manchester Community Transport and Manchester Ring and Ride) to carry out a similar investigation; and further calls on Transport for Greater Manchester Committee to review its funding of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport in the light of these circumstances.]
	It refers to the persecution of one of my constituents by Bernard Rowen, managing director of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd, a publicly funded charitable body. Does the Leader of the House agree that the vilification, as well as the persecution and repeated dismissal, of my constituent by Rowen is outrageous and intolerable? In the remaining time for this Session, or during the recess before the resumption of Parliament on 8 May, will he take all action open to him both to find justice for my constituent and to stop public money being wasted on an organisation whose managing director behaves like a tyrant?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the House fully appreciates his concern for his constituent. I had read the early-day motion to which he refers. Of course, this is a matter for the transport and local authorities in Greater Manchester, and I know that he has been in touch with them about the situation involving Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd. If I may, through discussions with his office, I will ensure that I draw the attention of the relevant authorities to the issue and to what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Therese Coffey: Is it possible to extend the duration of Transport Question Times to an hour, because the sessions are heavily oversubscribed? During today’s Transport questions, I was unable to
	raise BBC Suffolk’s “Don’t Be a Tosser” campaign on reducing road litter, and support for such an issue deserves to be raised on the Floor of the House.

Andrew Lansley: These things are considered carefully, but the allocation of time for questions is a matter for the Procedure Committee in the first instance. However, I will by all means look at the point that my hon. Friend raises and the campaign in Suffolk to which she refers.

Madeleine Moon: Many Members constantly have to deal with conflict between neighbours, and one of its causes is the planting of trees that undermine nearby boundary walls, drains and the foundations of neighbouring properties. Insurance companies say that that is a matter for regulation by this House, while the House says that it is a matter for insurance companies. Will the Leader of the House—either later today or in the next Session—consider whether it would be appropriate for the House to legislate on the matter and to provide guidance so that householders no longer face difficulties caused by inappropriate trees in neighbours’ gardens?

Andrew Lansley: Several of my constituents have experienced such difficulties, and some hon. Members will recall that they were debated in the House when we were considering leylandii legislation. Rather than making a commitment regarding future business, I shall, if I may, seek the views of my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs so that they may respond to the hon. Lady.

Andrew Turner: In January, a new European directive changed the rules for motorcycle licences. One of my constituents booked her test before the new rules took effect, but it was cancelled due to bad weather. She is now being made to take more expensive and time-consuming tests. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a written statement to be made on how the new EU directive adversely affects those who planned to take their test before 19 January, and is there anything that can be done about this?

Andrew Lansley: I understand why my hon. Friend’s constituent might have been disappointed by that turn of events. I regret that I have to say that the answer to his question is no, because apparently neither domestic regulations nor the underpinning European legislation makes any provision for such an exemption to the requirements. I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, and I recognise why he feels for his constituent.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a time to reflect on issues that we have not addressed properly during the Session? Does he agree that one of those—I wonder whether there is any time to consider this in the few hours left to us—is the rights of women? There is an exhibition on slavery in the Upper Waiting Hall, and who would have thought that we would be told that that exists in this country today? We are now aware that female genital mutilation is reasonably widespread in this country and that women in our communities are prevented from voting. Is it not about time that we
	talked about the rights of women to education and a full life? Who would have thought that, in the 21st century, we would have to discuss such issues?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues. In the course of this Session important debates have taken place relating to a number of them. I recall in particular the time that was allocated by the Backbench Business Committee around international women’s day and in anticipation of it, focusing on violence against women and violence in conflict situations. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has raised that through our leadership of the G8. He will no doubt be aware of the many steps taken by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) to support action in relation to female genital mutilation. I share with the hon. Gentleman and many Members of the House the outrage at the extent of modern slavery in this country, as illustrated and informed by the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. I attended its launch, which the Prime Minister undertook on Monday. The all-party group and Anthony Steen have done an important piece of work in bringing that exhibition here so that we can debate those issues.

Matthew Offord: A recent meeting was held at Middlesex university in which three speakers variously said that Israelis support the death of Palestinians, glorify in Palestinian deaths and loot the bodies of dead Palestinians. When I wrote to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university about the anguish that such unfounded comments cause local residents, he advised that when he had intervened in the past about radical and offensive speakers, the student union had complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and the university was fined and reprimanded. May we therefore have a debate on anti-Semitism on university campuses and how we can prevent such occurrences?

Andrew Lansley: I can understand how my hon. Friend might feel about that. It is of course a matter for the universities themselves, but he might consider raising it on the Adjournment, when the opportunity is once more available, as an important subject for us to consider. In the meantime I will take the opportunity to send to the vice-chancellor of Middlesex university a copy of today’s Hansard in order to ask if he will reply to my hon. Friend and to me.

Andrew Miller: Early-day motion 1305 celebrates the work of Crick and Watson, Rosalind Franklin and others on an important day: today is the 60th anniversary of the publication of their work in Nature.
	[That this House marks the 60th anniversary of the discovery of DNA; notes that the article entitled Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid was published by Francis Crick and James D. Watson in the scientific journal Nature in its 171st volume on 25 April 1953; further notes that that was the first publication which described the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA; further notes that much of the data that were used by Crick and Watson came from unpublished work by Rosalind Franklin and several 
	others; applauds the discovery of DNA as having had a major impact on biology, particularly in the field of genetics; and further marks one of the most profound scientific discoveries of the 20th Century.]
	It would be a great day for the Government to show some leadership on science and commit to holding Government-sponsored debates on major science topics so that the House can be informed and develop policy on some of the important consequences of the work of those scientists and other science disciplines—for example, the articles in the paper today about genetic editing, which is going to be an important issue in relation to food supply. Will the Leader of the House give a commitment to deliver such debates in Government time?

Andrew Lansley: As a Member of Parliament representing part of Cambridge, I am only too aware of that anniversary, of the tremendous character of those discoveries, and of the work that Crick and Watson and others did. That is recognised. For example, I was directly involved as Secretary of State in securing the future of the Francis Crick institute, which I see emerging next to the British Library. I think this Government are giving leadership on science. We are investing in science, we see it as an essential part of this country’s economic future, and we are supporting it to that effect, as well as recognising that the quality of our science has a unique contribution to make for the whole world. We are determined to build on that.

Tessa Munt: Would the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate about the conflict in which insolvency practitioners find themselves when they are appointed by a bank to deal with the administration of a company that has failed owing to the mis-selling of interest rate swaps and hedging products by the very same bank? There is therefore a requirement for them to pursue a claim against the bank and the desire to remain loyal to their employer and to maintain a long-term business relationship with that bank, which requires the skills of poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a point which has been raised at business questions before. It is important to try to ensure clarity about how mis-selling claims are to be handled in order to give confidence and reassurance to small firms in particular. I will ensure that in the time available we are in contact with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about getting an answer to my hon. Friend on that point.

Barbara Keeley: The measles outbreak is not just in Wales; we have had a steep increase in reported cases in Salford, mainly among older children—10 to 14-year-olds—who were not vaccinated in the 1990s, and I understand that about 10% of them have been hospitalised. Will the Leader of the House support my message to parents who did not have their children vaccinated when they were younger that it is absolutely vital that they take them now to be fully protected by the MMR vaccine? May we also have a statement from the Health Secretary—it would have to be today, of course—on what plans he has to boost the vaccination programme?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a statement today, but I am sure that the hon. Lady and the House know that Public Health England is producing publicity to encourage unvaccinated children and young people to come forward for vaccination. Having been shadow Secretary of State from 2003, I know that on both sides of the House we were very clear that the MMR vaccine was safe. We now have vaccine coverage rates back up to record levels, which is important, but we of course have an inheritance of unvaccinated young people. If we can deal with that rapidly, we will offset what would otherwise be a really unfortunate risk from a very nasty disease.

Lee Scott: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on getting young people with special needs into work? A project in my constituency and across the London borough of Redbridge will hopefully, with the help of the parent group, Interface, the borough council and employers, have the first people taking up jobs shortly.

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will join my hon. Friend in expressing appreciation in this House for the activities of Interface, other groups and his borough council. I welcome what he does on behalf of his constituents and applaud it.

Karl Turner: The Lord Chancellor recently announced plans to introduce price-competitive tendering in criminal legal aid. The plans are ill thought through and will destroy the criminal justice system and the criminal law profession. May we please have an urgent debate in the next Session on that very important topic?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot anticipate debates in the next Session. What I can say is that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor have done in trying to secure better value and a much greater focus for legal aid is terrifically important. [Interruption.] We have a very generous legal aid system, compared with countries around the world. [Interruption.] The intention is not that we should become ungenerous, but that we must be more focused and ensure that legal aid supports those who genuinely require public support in order to undertake their cases.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I have a hunch, as I suspect does the House, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is seeking to equal the volume of his predecessor.

Stuart Andrew: Figures released in answer to a written question I tabled on the safe and sustainable review show that costs to date include over £300,000 in legal fees, £1.7 million for external communication consultants and over £6 million in other costs. That is around £8 million in total. Now we hear that NHS England plans to add to the costs by appealing the High Court decision, potentially delaying the Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s report. Given that, and in the time available, is there any way we can urge NHS England not to appeal, so that we can finally get a resolution to children’s heart surgery in this country?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that the safe and sustainable review was established independently within the NHS by the joint committee of primary care trusts and that it is being sustained by NHS England on the same basis. Those are decisions for NHS England and I, of all people, must recognise that we have legislated to give it greater independence in decision making on the basis that it must lead on clinical matters. What he has said will of course be communicated to NHS England, and it will obviously consider carefully all the aspects of value for money associated with how it proceeds.

Derek Twigg: Will the Leader of the House use his influence with the Secretary of State for Education to find out why he has not come to the House today to answer for his decision yesterday to close the Department for Education offices at Castle View house in Runcorn, with the loss of at least 220 jobs, and to transfer the work to a more expensive location, despite the Runcorn office being the cheapest location, with the lowest-paid staff, in the 32nd most deprived borough in England and Wales? The opposition to that is shared in the private sector: the Halton chamber of commerce and enterprise is opposed to the move. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House today to make a statement?

Andrew Lansley: I fear I do not think it will be possible for the Secretary of State to be here today to make a statement or answer an urgent question on that. I also recall that we had exchanges on this issue at business questions, and it has been the subject of meetings that have taken place, in particular with the permanent secretary at the Department for Education, who explained why the move was necessary to help secure the administration cost savings—and I must say that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has been exemplary in securing administration cost savings in his Department.

Glyn Davies: The National Assembly for Wales has now resolved to take forward the Welsh Government’s proposal to introduce presumed consent into the organ donation system. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the view of the Department of Health at Westminster is made clear through a written statement on the consideration that has been given to the impact that change will have on the increasingly successful organ donation system in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend will be aware, my personal view is that the decision the Welsh Assembly Government are proceeding with is not the right one. From the Government’s point of view, I know that the Department of Health provided evidence in the consultation that illustrated that consequences and difficulties would flow to the organ donation system in England as a consequence of the proposed changes in Wales. If I may, in pursuance of this request I will ask my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary when and how he intends to follow through on those issues and on the concerns expressed at an earlier stage.

Mike Gapes: In a few days’ time in May, the European Union arms embargo on Syria will be up for expiry. The US Administration
	said there would be a red line if chemical weapons were used in Syria. It is increasingly clear they have been used, probably by the Syrian regime. Given that, what parliamentary accountability will there be before any decision is taken by our Government to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, which includes al-Qaeda-linked jihadists?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has regularly reported to the House on these issues, including at this Dispatch Box. What he has said when he was here is still true: these are difficult areas and dynamic situations, and as a consequence the Government are not ruling out further changes and in discussions over the next few days with our European partners will be discussing how the arms embargo has been amended and may be amended in future. My right hon. Friend has kept the House fully informed, therefore, and I am sure he will take every opportunity to do so again in the future.

Greg Mulholland: A few weeks ago we had a debate on the lack of accountability in the NHS and I am afraid it appears that we need another one. On 19 April, these comments were made in Computer Weekly about Sir Bruce Keogh’s decision to suspend surgery at Leeds:
	“Keogh, first by requesting unverified data, then by ignoring the data's obvious faults, then by breaching usual procedure in not seeking to clarify those faults, then apparently wilfully misinterpreting that data, and then using the weight of all these errors to tell Leeds to close its heart unit, may have committed a serious breach of protocols he had helped establish.”
	Why is the Secretary of State for Health still refusing to have an independent investigation into this matter?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said in response to an urgent question about these issues. I share the Health Secretary’s confidence in the decisions that Sir Bruce Keogh took and, indeed, his precautionary approach. As my hon. Friend will recall, in a matter of days he and NHS England were able to agree with Leeds general infirmary on how to proceed in a way that offered parents and children the necessary reassurance about safety.

Wayne David: Today’s quarterly growth figures are truly lamentable. May we have an emergency debate during the next few hours, so that although the Government have no new policies to offer, they can at least show their concern about the situation?

Andrew Lansley: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I think that today’s figures are an encouraging sign of how the economy is healing. We know the economic backdrop and the House is under no illusions about how difficult the economic circumstances are, not just in this country but, as the IMF has made clear, across Europe in particular. The IMF’s forecasts for this country were for a limited return to growth, but that growth was stronger than that of France and Germany. Alongside that, we have to maintain the credibility of our fiscal position and give space for an activist monetary stance. The Growth and Infrastructure Bill and related measures show that in this Session we have taken every
	possible action to promote enterprise and wealth creation, because they are the only means by which the growth we are looking for will come.

Andrew Bridgen: It is said that there are three types of economist: those who can count and those who cannot. [Interruption.] I knew that hon. Members would get that eventually. Given that this morning’s GDP growth figure of 0.3% was three times the much-reported best upper estimate of the BBC, may we have a debate on BBC bias?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate in this Session, but some Select Committees are taking every opportunity to scrutinise the governance of the BBC, so I encourage my hon. Friend to discuss the issue with them.

Diana Johnson: Figures this week show that in the course of this Parliament, Hull will lose a total of £649 per head through local government and welfare cuts, compared with Surrey Heath, which will lose only £199 per head. May we have an urgent statement from the relevant Minister on why this Government want to penalise the most disadvantaged parts of this country?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but that is one of the poorest uses of statistics I have heard. One has to recognise the base one is starting from. In some parts of the country, Government grant to local authorities is very modest in the first place, while the consequences of reductions in central Government spending, which are necessary—we have to do it—are, in absolute terms, greater in those places where the original level of grant distributed was highest. We cannot avoid that simple fact. We are setting out to make sure that we are fair across the country and that the way in which grant is distributed reflects need properly.

Philip Hollobone: When a suitable opportunity presents itself, might we have a debate on magistrates courts and magistrates? Figures released earlier this week show that 3.8% of offenders who appear before magistrates courts are jailed, but the figure in Northamptonshire is the highest in the country at 6.5%. Such a debate would allow me and other Northamptonshire MPs to praise magistrates in Northamptonshire, including the Kettering bench, for their effective use of sentencing powers.

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend knows, the Crime and Courts Bill has completed its passage through the House. I would not want to encourage him to believe that the Government want to compare sentences and praise sentencing in some courts relative to others. We in this House establish the legal framework, but we rightly expect magistrates and, indeed, judges to make their own decisions, and circumstances will vary across the country. It is entirely open for Members of Parliament to act in their own constituencies, as my hon. Friend does, and to speak freely on behalf of the people they represent.

William Bain: Before the House rises, may we have a statement from the Chancellor about the pitiful state of the construction industry in this country? Is the Leader of the House
	aware that the Office for National Statistics established this morning that construction output has shrunk by a tenth under this Government and that 70,000 jobs in the sector were lost in the year to last December? Do Members not deserve an urgent opportunity to find out whether the Government have any plans to deal with that dreadful situation?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman knows that construction orders were up in the last quarter and that new work is up. It is a bit rich for any Labour Member to speak about construction, because they know as well as I do, when they look in their hearts, that construction activity in this country, and house building in particular, fell off a cliff in 2008 as a consequence of the bust that the Labour Government said would never happen. We are fighting our way back. The Chancellor’s Budget set out unprecedented measures to support new house building in this country and the Government continue to spend more on infrastructure investment than the last Labour Government had planned to spend.

Andrew Jones: During this Session, we have had debates about skills and apprenticeships, tax competitiveness, the progress in cutting red tape, and investment in transport and digital infrastructure, such as the successful rural broadband project in North Yorkshire. When we return for the new Session, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate that pulls all those things together and reviews the progress towards making the UK a better place to do business?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. There are some very impressive schemes in North Yorkshire that demonstrate how IT can be used in rural areas. I am aware of that not least because of the way in which the telehealth and telecare systems were rolled out by North Yorkshire county council. In the year ahead, the introduction of the £2,000 employment allowance will reduce businesses’ national insurance contributions bill for employing people and stimulate further employment, we will move to having the joint lowest corporation tax rates among the G20 countries and there will be a tenfold increase in the investment allowance for businesses. I hope that it will be recognised that those measures and many others are making this country the best place to do business. In the next year, I hope that we will take every opportunity not only to add to that, but to shout about it in this country and beyond.

Mr Speaker: Miss Anne McIntosh.

Anne McIntosh: How incredibly kind, Mr Speaker. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published its draft clauses for revising the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and asked the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to report by 29 April? We stand prepared to do that, but there is the slight problem that the House is not meeting next week to enable us to adopt our formal report. Prorogation is the only time when no Select Committee can meet. I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to ensure that the Department does not publish the clauses formally, but awaits the opinion of the Select Committee so that there is proper scrutiny
	and we do not repeat the situation that gave rise to the 1991 Act, which has caused so much concern that it now needs to be revised.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She raises an issue of timing. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consults her. What may be done formally during Prorogation is limited, but rather more may be done informally. Clauses would not be published during Prorogation. We will wait until the new Session before proceeding, subject to what is in the Gracious Speech, with the publication of further legislation.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1310 on the plight of disabled staff working for Tesco?
	[That this House is concerned by reports from disabled Tesco workers in Harlow, that they may be forced into redundancy because their existing adjustments will not be transferred to the new site at Dagenham; notes reports that one warehouseman, who has been registered disabled and received an adjustment for many years, will be expected to hit new performance targets within an eight-week trial period at the new site; further notes the anxieties of disabled workers that this may make moving to the new site effectively impossible for them, pushing them into unemployment; and therefore urges Tesco’s management to allow Harlow workers to transfer to the new site with their existing pay and their existing terms and conditions, including disability adjustments.]
	My right hon. Friend will be aware of the closure of the Tesco distribution plant in Harlow, and there are disabled workers at risk of redundancy. One warehouseman has been registered as disabled for six years, yet he has been told that in order to transfer to Dagenham and keep his job, he must lose his disability adjustment and will be expected to hit new performance targets in an eight-week trial period at the new site. That will be impossible for him and could push him on to the dole. Will the Leader of the House urge Tesco to be more compassionate and treat all its workers fairly—disabled or otherwise—and ensure that workers who move to the Dagenham plant get the same pay and conditions for doing the same job?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend’s constituents in Harlow affected by the redundancy consequent on the changes to Tesco’s distribution facilities will be grateful to him for the way that he has represented them, not only as a community of employees, but in this instance individually. It is not for me at the Dispatch Box to urge anything on a private company in such a way, but I take the opportunity to draw what my hon. Friend has said directly to the attention of Tesco, and ask it to respond. I hope it will do so very sympathetically.

Point of Order

Alec Shelbrooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday it was reported that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has been taken seriously ill. Is there a mechanism by which the House can send its best wishes to his family, and wish our fellow parliamentarian a speedy recovery?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and the answer is that he has found his own mechanism. The sentiments that he has expressed towards the right hon. Gentleman and his family will be reflected in the feelings of the whole House.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Michael Fallon: I beg to move,
	That this House does not insist on its amendment 25E, to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees with the Lords in their amendments 25H rev and 25J in lieu.
	On Tuesday when we considered this issue the House agreed to two amendments to the employee shareholder clause. First, we ensured that individuals would receive written particulars to explain the employment rights that are not associated with an employee shareholder job. Those particulars will also explain the rights attached to shares that are given as part of that role. Secondly, we amended the clause to ensure that individuals had the space and time to consider whether or not to accept the job.
	Yesterday, the other place agreed further amendments to help ensure that individuals fully understand what those employee shareholder jobs will mean for them—both the risks and the rewards. Individuals who are offered employee shareholder roles must now receive independent advice before they can accept the job. That advice can be given only by a solicitor, a barrister, a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives employed in a solicitor’s practice, a certified adviser in an advice centre or—I am sure Opposition Members will welcome this—a certified trade union official. A person employed by the company, such as an in-house lawyer, cannot give that advice; it must be independent. In addition, the company must pay any reasonable costs incurred in obtaining that advice, even if the individual does not take up the offer of the employee shareholder job.
	The amendments also clarify the process of becoming an employee shareholder. When offered an employee shareholder role, an individual must be given the written particulars in advance of receiving independent advice. We have also made it clear that the seven calendar day consideration period starts only once the individual has received the advice.
	Those amendments confirm our intention that the new employment status is wholly voluntary. I have made it clear throughout the debates on the clause in the House and in Committee, and my hon. and noble Friend Viscount Younger has made it clear in another place, that we do not want people to be coerced into the new roles. It is important that they should agree to accept an employee shareholder job only when they understand what it means for them.
	To that end, we have published guidance in draft. In response to the concerns expressed by some of my noble Friends, we have strengthened the measures by saying that there should be special protection for those on jobseeker’s allowance—they cannot be mandated to take that type of employment status. We have provided a written statement of the particulars and a cooling-off period, and we have now provided access to independent legal advice.
	The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), kept pressing me on Tuesday on what I meant what I said that we would reflect on the concerns expressed in
	the other place. The new measures are the results of such reflection. We have reflected on and met those concerns.
	I pay tribute to Lord Pannick and to my noble Friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Forsyth. Lord Pannick has said:
	“It is impossible to see what further protections this House could usefully add.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1464.]
	The House should support the further amendments to clause 27, so that it can form part of this important pro-growth Bill and provide companies and individuals with a new employment option.

Chuka Umunna: Where on earth does one start with this poor excuse of a Bill? It is worth reflecting on where it all started. The Bill was a ridiculous and badly thought-out idea cooked up for insertion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s conference speech. It has been so badly handled and so badly thought through that people from all political parties, employers and employees have united in almost universal opposition to it.
	Lord Bilimoria, one the country’s best-known business men, who voted against the plan in the other place yesterday, described the policy not just as a dog’s breakfast, but as a mad dog’s breakfast. The noble Lord is a man to whom all hon. Members should sit up and listen. I do not know whether hon. Members have partaken of Cobra beer while treating themselves to a curry, but Lord Bilimoria is the man behind Cobra. He is certainly worth listening to. He said that:
	“from a businessman’s point of view, this does not make sense. It is absolutely unnecessary to do this”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1450.]
	The Minister referred to the concessions—that concessions have been forced out of the Government serves only to reinforce how badly thought-out the proposal was. Whether or not JSA claimants could lose their benefit if they refuse to accept job offers carrying the employee shareholder status was an obvious question. I first asked it in November, when the Government ignored it. I repeated it, and the Government said that they could not lose their benefit. When they were mauled on the point in the other place, they effectively admitted that they could. In order to get the proposal through in the face of opposition from several former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, the Government had to come to the House last week and agree to amend the guidance for Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus advisers to state explicitly that a jobseeker cannot be mandated to apply for an employee shareholder job. They should have done that in the first instance. What a total shambles.
	Another issue is the advice and guidance to potential employees, and the need to ensure that they understand what they are getting into. Of course people were going to be concerned—that was obvious. If, as is the case at the moment, the law requires that people who sign away their fundamental rights on leaving employment receive proper legal advice and guidance, then of course people were going to insist on getting similar advice on entering into employment. I doubt the thought even passed through the Chancellor’s mind as he pursued his ideological fixation with watering down people’s rights at work.
	Now there is a requirement for employers to pay for that advice in advance of a potential employee shareholder entering into an agreement. The point is this: these concessions are not enough and they were never going to be enough, because this entire proposal is wrong in principle. I think that most Government Members know that: it has been notable how few Government Members have stood in support of this measure.
	During the passage of the Bill, no coherent explanation has been offered for why it is necessary to link employee ownership to people losing the fundamental rights at work that we all enjoy. No evidence has been put forward to suggest that this is what people want. The expert in this matter is the Employee Ownership Association, which has been a major influence behind the growth of employee ownership in the UK. Its chief executive could not have been clearer on this point yesterday, when he said that its membership have been absolutely clear that
	“There is no need to dilute the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost employee ownership. Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance”—
	enhance—
	“not dilute the working conditions and entitlements”—
	of the work force.
	Never mind the principles, all the way through the passage of the Bill, in the other place and in this House, Ministers have simply failed to convince on how it would work in practice.
	I mentioned industrial relations on a previous occasion and explained that, from a practitioner’s point of view, I do not understand how it would help employee relations if, in the middle of one’s employment, an employer suddenly says, “You know what? I think I’m going to give you some shares, but in return I want you to give up your fundamental rights at work.” No explanation has been given as to why, practically, that would work. I have said that taking away people’s employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, will simply encourage people, when they fall out with their employers, to bring spurious discrimination claims. This measure will inevitably lead to that, and there has been no explanation of how that will be addressed.
	On the valuation of shares, I have asked how on earth shares given to employees will be valued. Again, very little information has been given. In fact, the Minister in the other place, Viscount Younger, last night acknowledged that for private companies there is no traded market that enables easy valuation of shares.
	There is then the issue of tax avoidance. This is the Government who say that they want to clamp down on tax avoidance. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says that to the extent that this proposal will be used, it will foster tax avoidance on a grand scale. Viscount Younger said that the Government would not allow the scheme to be used in that way yet, as we have seen all along, he gave no specific detail whatsoever on what the Government would do to prevent it.
	I want to finish by dwelling on what the Bill is all about. As the Minister said, it is called the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. We have learned that the economy has gone back to where it was six months ago and that we are undergoing the slowest economic recovery in 100 years, and the Government have come forward with this. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the Bill promotes growth.
	What of my opposite number, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? He has been nowhere to be seen at the scene of this crime. Where has he been? He is the man who said that he fundamentally objected to the Beecroft proposals put forward by the Conservative donor, yet he is not here and the Bill will strip away people’s rights at work in a way, some would argue, that even Beecroft did not contemplate. [Interruption.] I am told he is in Brazil. He said last February, in his famous letter to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, that the Government had no compelling vision for growth and were coming forward with fairly piecemeal measures.

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is making a very good case. It is notable not only that the Business Secretary is not here, but that no one from his party is here. It will be interesting to see, in a few minutes when we go through the Lobby, whether the rest of the invisible men and women turn up to vote, or whether they abstain and renege again on workers’ rights.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fairness to Conservative Government Members, at least they are upfront and frank about their purpose in taking away people’s rights at work and do not, while voting for measures that do that, claim to be doing otherwise. We will watch carefully to see which Liberal Democrat Members join us in the Division Lobby.
	I return to my previous point: there is no compelling vision for growth in the Bill. On all the evidence, the comments that the Business Secretary made in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister last year are just as valid now as they were then, which is why we will not support this ludicrous measure and have resisted it every step of the way.

Kelvin Hopkins: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on the Front Bench. There is a parallel here with the privatisations and de-mutualisations of the 1980s and early 1990s, when consumers and partners—shareholders, if one likes—in mutual organisations were persuaded to give up their rights for shares, which were then sold. A classic example is Northern Rock, which had to be funded by the taxpayer to prevent it from being destroyed, and just recently came the disaster affecting the old Trustee Savings Bank, which was a mutual bank serving the country and its customers very well. It was forced to privatise and has now turned out to be an expensive disaster, a basket case that even the Co-op bank cannot afford to take on. This will cost the Government money. Again, a Conservative Government are persuading people to give up rights for shares that will last a few weeks, and then they will have lost their rights for good.

David Anderson: This section of the Bill should be called, “The shoot from the lip” section, because that is exactly where it came from—a throwaway line in a conference speech by a Chancellor whose arrogance is matched only by his ignorance. It was an anti-trade union, anti-worker comment to score cheap political points by the seaside during the Tory party conference. This is a man who has decided to run a Government along dividing lines, a man whose Prime Minister’s background is summed up entirely by the fact that he was a public relations expert—and that is how he continues to run this country.
	This proposal has shown yet again that the Conservative party still believes in the cost of everything and the value of nothing. It is banana-republic stuff. We are asking people to sell their rights. It is abysmal. If we asked people to sell their rights in any other part of what has become a civilised society in the 21st century, we would be laughed out of court, but the Government are serious about doing this, despite the huge opposition from everyone who really knows about it—the people in the workplace, in businesses and in the other House, who have said very clearly that this is a nonsense.
	The Minister said it was impossible to see what more reassurance we could want, but it is impossible for me to see why on earth we are bothering with this. This has been a complete and utter waste of parliamentary time. We have got lots of parliamentary time, by the way. We are going to be on holiday for another two weeks when we could have been discussing really serious things. The next motion is being pushed through in an hour and a half. This is just about a Tory party struggling to find a dividing line. Amendments 25F and 25G talk about “drag-along rights” and “tag-along rights”. As I read them, I was reminded of children’s hour on the television in the 1950s—you are probably too young to remember, Mr Speaker. There used to be programmes called, “Rag, Tag and Bobtail”, “Andy Pandy” and “Bill and Ben”, but we have been treated this week and over the past nine months to the “Woodentops”

John McDonnell: I cannot match that. Reminiscences are a strong point of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).
	I want to make four brief points. First, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a disastrous way to make legislation. It started with a stunt, and then we got to what the Minister called “ministerial reflection”. This is not an example of ministerial reflection; it is an example of ministerial retreat.
	Secondly, the Minister has said again today that this will be voluntary and that protections will be in place. There are more than 2.5 million unemployed, and it is rising. People are desperate for work and will do anything they possibly can to find a job. The pressure to take the shares or perhaps lose the job—that informal pressure—will ensure that this is not voluntary. It is like putting food on a plate in front of a hungry person and saying that it is voluntary to eat it. We will monitor this and I would welcome a six-monthly report from Ministers on how many people take up the option. It will not be a long report, as this proposal is almost dead in the water already; in fact one could probably come along with a list of the few names of those who have taken it up.
	On JSA, I repeat that I do not accept any assurances from the Minister. None of the assurances that we have heard about the activities of the DWP to protect people—particularly regarding the sanctions and targets that the DWP and jobcentre officials are forced to make—have held water and are not worth the Hansard record they are written on. We will monitor the activities of the DWP in this matter to see whether the Minister’s assurances stand up.
	Finally, there is a lesson for the Government in these debates, and it is this; neither this House nor the other place will tolerate again proposals in which people are asked to sell, effectively, their basic human rights. I give this assurance on behalf of, I am sure, all Opposition Members, and if there are any further such proposals, we will resist them tooth and nail because they undermine a basic principle of human rights development in this country. We feel as strongly as others will feel as the Government seek to roll this out.

Michael Fallon: With the leave of the House, let me reply to some of the points that have been made. First, there was a suggestion that the measure is not supported. It has been supported, repeatedly, by this House, and the Opposition’s attempt to derail it yesterday in the other place was defeated by a majority of 107, including by Liberal Democrats and Cross-Bench peers. We are now in a position where both Houses of Parliament support the clause and the principles behind it.

Ian Murray: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Fallon: No.
	The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is quite wrong to say that we moved only very late in the day to consider the position of jobseekers allowance claimants. That issue was raised in this place and in Committee, where I gave assurances in response to questions and concerns from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in December. This is not something new; we have done everything we can throughout the passage of the Bill to ensure that the status is entirely voluntary. Members in both Houses were fully entitled to raise these concerns, and were right to do so. We have responded to them.
	Secondly, we have introduced legal advice. Independent legal advice is not available at the moment for those considering other forms of employment status. A person is not offered independent legal advice if they are asked to make a judgment between being a worker and being an employee. I remind the House that the status of being a worker gives someone fewer rights than the status of being an employee-shareholder. People are not given independent legal advice on that, but we have introduced it in this respect because it is a new form of employment status and we want people to be absolutely sure of the risks and rewards involved.
	Thirdly, the hon. Member for Streatham said that my noble Friend Viscount Younger had somehow suggested that it would be impossible to value shares. What he actually said, at column 1444, House of Lords Hansard, was that the valuation of private company shares was not particularly easy, but that it was done the whole time by expert advisers in various circumstances who have to make a valuation. That is quite standard procedure.

Ian Murray: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Fallon: No.
	The hon. Member for Streatham suggested that the tax provisions would be open to some kind of abuse. If he looks at the Finance Bill, which clearly he has not, he will see that schedule 22 includes provisions, which we published in draft, that deal specifically with the possibility of abuse of those tax provisions. I remind him that the Finance Bill is an annual event. Where abuses occur at any point under the law, we have the ability to improve our defences against them.
	It is wrong of the Opposition to be completely negative about this proposal. It is wrong indeed to focus on just one aspect. We are talking about a package of employment rights, a package of mandatory shares and a package of tax incentives. It is the interaction of all three aspects that we think will motivate staff and better involve them in the future prospects of the company.

Ian Murray: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I cannot hear the Minister speak. If he does not wish to give way, that is his choice, but I must be able to hear what he has to say.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it not be right to get it on the record that it is etiquette for one Front Bencher to give way to another Front Bencher in a debate of this sort?

Lindsay Hoyle: It might be normal practice to give way, but it is still the Minister’s choice whether he wishes to or not. Obviously on this occasion he does not wish to give way.

Michael Fallon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to wind up this debate in a few minutes. The House will recall that I have given way repeatedly in debates on this matter.
	Nobody has claimed that this Bill on its own or any individual measure in it will by itself trigger the growth that our economy needs, but in this Bill six different Departments have come together with a package of measures that will speed up the planning process, make it easier for families who want to adjust their housing, speed up the roll-out of broadband, increase investment in our gas and electricity networks and, finally and importantly, provide a new form of shareholder-employee status for those companies that wish to bind their employees more closely into the success of their performance.

Question put,
	The House divided:
	Ayes 222, Noes 161.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House does not insist on its amendment 25E, to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees with the Lords in their amendments 25H rev and 25J in lieu.

Railways

[Relevant documents: Thirty-third Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC-xxxiii; Twelfth Report from the Transport Committee, on The European Commission’s 4th Railway Package, HC 1001.]

Simon Burns: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5855/13, a Commission Communication: The Fourth Railway Package-completing the single European railway area to foster European competitiveness and growth, No. 6012/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Regulation on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 881/2004, No. 6013/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast), No. 6014/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on railway safety (Recast), No. 6017/13, a Commission Report on the progress made towards achieving interoperability of the rail system, No 6019/13, a Commission Report on the profile and tasks of other train crew members, No. 5960/13 and Addenda 1 to 5, a Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail, No. 5985/13 and Addenda 1 to 7, a Draft Directive amending Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure, and No. 6020/13, a Commission report on the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2007/58/EC on the opening of the market of international rail passenger transport accompanying the Communication on the fourth railway package; supports the Government’s aim of ensuring any resulting measures are appropriate, encourage competition and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU; and further supports the Government’s view that any such measures should be evidence-based, proportionate and reduce or at least minimise the regulatory, administrative and cost burden for industry.
	I welcome the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred this subject to the House for debate. I also thank and pay tribute to the Transport Committee for its report on the fourth railway package, a number of whose conclusions and recommendations the Government support.
	The fourth railway package is a major European Union legislative proposal involving three directives and three regulations. As Members will appreciate, we are still considering the implications of the proposals in consultation with other Departments, so all I can give the House this afternoon is our initial position.
	The United Kingdom has one of the most liberalised rail networks in the EU, which is why the Government support further opening of the domestic EU public passenger transport markets. However, we want to ensure that the proposals that are implemented as part of the package are flexible enough to work within the UK’s public passenger transport structure, and are compatible with our plans for rail reform. The Transport Committee made that point in its report.
	Evidence garnered by the European Commission indicates that about 40% of passenger routes in the EU are accessible to new operators. That implies that significant market opportunities could arise both for UK rail firms and for those in the rest of the EU if the proposals pass into European law. There would also be potential for expansion of the rolling stock leasing sector. The new infrastructure manager separation provisions could give freight operators benefits as well if they further open up
	access in practice, reducing the chances of discriminatory behaviour in some member states. In any event, I can assure the House that the proposals will be the subject of consultation with stakeholders and considerable negotiation within the European Union. We will continue to engage with the Commission, the European Parliament and other member states to ensure that any concerns are addressed in the final texts.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am listening to the Minister’s comments with interest. Would these proposals force the publicly owned railway systems that exist in some parts of Europe to be handed over to the private sector, or would they allow the public sector to participate on a level playing field?

Simon Burns: I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance on that, if that is what he is seeking. It is not a question of forcing any railways in any country in the EU to move from one position to another, although the main thrust of the package is to create a greater liberalisation of the market for the benefit of both taxpayers in the EU and passengers.

Ian Murray: Does the Minister agree that any operator, whether private or public, that returns £640 million to the taxpayers of any country is a good operation to have?

Simon Burns: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to take us back to the House’s earlier Transport questions, as he is trying to highlight the east coast main line case. I am more than happy to take as long it takes to explain why it is the right thing to return the east coast main line to a franchise situation, as the last Labour Government wanted to do, but if I were to do so, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would step in quickly to tell me that that is beyond the scope of this debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Simon Burns: I am spoiled for choice, so I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East.

Tobias Ellwood: The important issue of whether ownership should be private or public has been raised, and I hope my right hon. Friend will assure me that he agrees that railways in private ownership are better run than those in public ownership. Certain countries in Europe, however, still have a tight grasp of public ownership of their railways, and I therefore hope he will encourage liberalisation of the market so that private companies can invest into markets throughout Europe.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he can certainly have that assurance. We lead the way in Europe on liberalisation of the rail market, followed closely by the Dutch, the Swedish and the Germans, seeking to—

Ian Murray: rose—

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Simon Burns: I am trying to answer my hon. Friend’s question. His second point is also absolutely right. As he knows—and as Labour desperately tries to forget—since privatisation the number of passengers using our rail network has doubled, the number of journeys on our
	rail network has doubled, the standards have improved noticeably—but there is still some way to go to get even better quality and standards for passengers—and the investment in the infrastructure to improve the quality of the journeys has increased. It is incredible that, although the Labour party pays lip service to a good, efficient rail system, in 13 years of the last Labour Government there were just 10 extra miles of electrification on the network, yet in the first three years of this coalition Government there have been 850 extra miles of electrification.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Ian Murray: rose—

Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman has had his turn, so I suggest he sits down. I will now give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make progress.

Sheila Gilmore: If our system is so much better than the European systems that have more state control, why is it that Members, including on the Government Benches, have been saying that the costs here are too great? Is there, perhaps, some relationship between the costs under a privatised system as opposed to the costs under a state-run system?

Simon Burns: I think I am in a better position than the hon. Lady to know what my hon. Friends say, as I probably mix with them more frequently than she does. They are impressed that since privatisation the number of passengers using the rail network has doubled, the number of rail journeys has doubled and the amount of freight on rail, and off our congested roads, has increased by 60%. They want continued investment in infrastructure to improve the quality of journeys and to improve rolling stock and track electrification so that people can travel around this country by rail far better than under British Rail. As someone who, sadly, is old enough to remember British Rail, I find it incredible that so many—almost dinosaurs—on the Opposition Benches seem to have a rose-tinted view of how fabulous it was. It was not.
	I turn to the safety aspects of the package, which are important and are of major interest to the various sectors in the UK rail transport chain. In consultation with stakeholders, we are giving full consideration to their implications. The proposal to move from a two-part safety certificate to a single-part certificate is welcome as a simplification of the existing process. We expect it to lead to a significant reduction in the costs and regulatory burdens for railway undertakings. It will especially benefit those who operate cross-border services.
	However, we need to look carefully at the justification for the extension of powers for the European rail agency to issue the single safety certificate, and we need to understand how it supports market opening objectives. Enhancement of the agency’s powers for audit and inspection of national safety authorities will change its current role. It is a fundamental shift away from a partnership role to a policing function. We are not convinced that those powers are necessary given the high level of co-operation already achieved between the majority of national safety authorities. We will ask the European Commission for further clarity about how any issues exposed will be resolved.
	The communication includes proposals for a recast of the interoperability directive for railways. The Commission believes that there are problems with the authorisation process for rail vehicles, especially when the vehicle is intended for use in more than one member state. It refers to delays and costs reported by operators to the Commission due to vehicles sitting idle in sidings awaiting authorisation from national safety authorities. To solve the problem, the Commission proposes a recast of the directive and changes to the authorisation process. A key change would be that the applicant applied to the European rail agency instead of the national safety authorities for authorisation of their vehicle.
	Removal of powers from national safety authorities to the agency will change their role. The three safety authorities in the UK—the Office of Rail Regulation, the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland—will no longer be able to issue those authorisations.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does that not indicate the heart of the problem? The European Union is once again seeking to extend its powers in an area where it already has competence. In the review of competences, will my right hon. Friend consider returning the whole area to the authority of the United Kingdom and our democratic control, as we are an island and our connection with the continent by rail is limited to the channel tunnel?

Simon Burns: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, to which I will respond in two parts. His second point is, I am afraid, above my pay grade. I hear what he says, and I understand what he is getting at, but I cannot give him an assurance. The transport field is a bit more complicated because so much is done on a Europe-wide basis, but I can give him the somewhat glib assurance that no doubt his concerns and his point will be heard and considered in other places. On the narrower issue, I beg his patience because he may be more reassured when I reach our proposals.

William Cash: I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). When my right hon. Friend reaches that narrower issue, will he make clear whether High Speed 2 is directly connected? It is being put around by the UK Independence party, and others in the county council elections, that HS2 is directly related to the issue.

Simon Burns: I will deal with it now. HS2 is not directly related. It is a project drawn up by the coalition Government—to be fair, building on the work of Lord Adonis when Labour was in power. We support the project because we believe it is in the national interest, which is why it is going ahead. UKIP has sought to muddy the water on a number of issues with regard to HS2 and the European Union. As I was saying at Transport questions, before I was politely interrupted, that is fascinating, because if one were to travel around Buckinghamshire, and possibly Warwickshire, Staffordshire and a few other points north, one would see opposition to that magnificent project from the party my hon. Friend mentioned. He might then be confused if he
	read UKIP’s 2010 general election manifesto, which calls for three—not one, but three—high-speed railway systems in this country. But I now return—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I help the Minister a little more? He is right to suggest to the Chair that he does not want a rerun of Transport questions. I totally agree and we are not going to do that, are we?

Simon Burns: Of course not, Mr Deputy Speaker.

David Anderson: The Minister wants to rerun the answers.

Simon Burns: Cruel.
	Before I was so cruelly interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, I was talking about the important issue of safety.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Simon Burns: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make some progress.
	The Commission’s explanation is that removing authorisation powers to the agency will help to address the delays that some operators have reported when seeking authorisations from national safety authorities. That is especially the case for cross-border operations where a train may run through more than one member state. We are not currently aware of significant costs or delays for railway undertakings in obtaining those authorisations in the UK, so we are not convinced that there is a problem in the UK. That is why we need to safeguard practices that already work here.
	Overall, the Commission needs to be clearer about how the changes to the directive will contribute to market opening. Another Commission proposal is to change the authorisation process for trackside signalling, which would have a significant impact in the UK. There is not yet much experience in the UK of the authorisation of trackside signalling by the national safety authorities. However, UK projects are more likely to prefer to seek authorisation from the national safety authority rather than the agency, because they have not encountered difficulties so far.
	The Commission has explained that to deal effectively with authorisation delays and cross-border problems it requires action at the EU level. It argues that individual member states acting independently cannot address such problems. However, at the Transport Council on 11 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed that there might be an alternative to moving powers away from national safety authorities to the agency. We have suggested giving the market a choice about where the authorisation is obtained from, so we propose exploring with member states and the Commission an approach that would enable rail undertakings to choose whether to obtain an authorisation from the relevant national safety authority or the agency. The same principle could be extended to give the industry a choice about where it needs to apply for trackside signalling authorisations. The UK is continuing to push
	for our choice of approach so that the national safety authorities and the agency could have the power to authorise vehicles.
	The details of the recast of the interoperability directive are being negotiated in Council working groups. However, there are indications that our views about choice are being listened to and that other member states support our idea, which gives us grounds for encouragement. We will keep a close eye on how the proposals develop to try to ensure that we get the best outcome for Britain and the rail system in Europe. We will try to preserve as much flexibility as possible for member states to determine what work needs to be authorised and the applicable standards.
	Let me turn to the impact of the proposals to require a railway infrastructure manager to be separate from a railway undertaking. The Government will need to understand the possible effects on several areas, including alliances between Network Rail and railway undertakings, and joint working arrangements. Within the package are requirements to ensure the effective independence of the infrastructure manager within a vertically integrated undertaking. The Government are looking further at how they will influence the holding company model, as used by Eurotunnel in respect of the channel tunnel and the cross-border rail services that run through it. There will also be points to consider for the railway structure in Northern Ireland, which remains vertically integrated.
	Sir Roy McNulty concluded in his report—we accept this—that the key to delivering long-term efficiencies in the rail industry is the alignment of incentives between track and train. Alliances or partnerships between Network Rail and the passenger train operators are central to our approach. Alliances are expected to maximise efficiencies and to ensure that minority freight and open-access operators are protected, not discriminated against. They do so by ensuring that capacity allocation and charging decisions are undertaken outside the alliance to avoid discrimination against smaller train operators, including freight operators. Safety is protected by ensuring that ultimate accountability rests with the statutory duty holder. We believe that that is compatible with the open competition in rail markets that the Commission wants, but we are worried that the way in which the Commission’s proposals are formulated might prohibit certain types of alliances, such as between Network Rail and rail undertakings, and joint working arrangements, such as integrated control centres and performance improvement projects. The proposals therefore might prevent us from achieving the benefits that we anticipate. I know that the Transport Committee’s report stated that joint working between Network Rail and train operators should not be prohibited or unduly restricted. We will continue to engage closely with the European Commission and Parliament, and other member states, to ensure that our concerns are addressed in the final proposals.
	On the impact of the proposals on franchising, we welcome the commitment to market opening.

Gavin Shuker: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Simon Burns: I actually have not said anything yet, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is going to ask. Perhaps he will allow me to say a little more.
	We believe that the liberalised domestic market has delivered significant benefits for passengers. We have shown our commitment to franchising through the recent announcement to restart the franchising programme and return the east coast main line to the private sector.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. Will he confirm that it would not be possible for him to continue to operate the east coast line through Directly Operated Railways if this package of measures goes through? I understand his commitment to returning the line to the private sector, but given that it is thriving in the public sector, why does he want to go along with these proposals?

Simon Burns: I am not sure what it is about the hon. Gentleman that he cannot comprehend the position, but I suspect that he just has not read the facts. Lord Adonis and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), when he was in my post, also believed that it was best to operate trains through franchises in the private sector. Even when Lord Adonis had to introduce the emergency measure of taking the east coast main line into public ownership, as a result of the problems that blew up at that time, he was clear that that would be a short-term measure and that the service would be returned to a franchise when it was possible to do so.

Gavin Shuker: indicated dissent.

Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman is displaying a degree of incredulity and suggesting that that was not the case. I know that he was not a Member at that time, but if goes to the Library to find the relevant copies of Hansard, he will read that Lord Adonis and the right hon. Member for Tooting were emphatic in their announcements to Parliament that the decision on the east coast main line was a short-term measure. I am rather grateful that Lord Adonis went a step further by saying that it was better for the railways to be run by franchises in the private sector.

Kelvin Hopkins: But he’s a Tory.

Simon Burns: It is fascinating to hear that from one of Lord Adonis’s colleagues. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman—there seems to be a problem with Luton today—meant that in a derogatory way, but I thought that Lord Adonis was not a Tory, but the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport. I also thought that he was working with the present leader of the Labour party on formulating Labour’s policies.

David Anderson: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: No, I am going to make progress—[Interruption.] I do not want to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have listened to many of his interventions and it is not often that they can be put in the category of making progress—they usually hark back to an era that most of us do not remember.

David Anderson: rose—

Simon Burns: I will make progress in my way, not the hon. Gentleman’s.
	The subject of franchising has aroused considerable interest among Labour Members, so let me briefly set out something that I have said before. Since privatisation, rail numbers have doubled and passenger satisfaction is at an all-time high. Recent European research has shown that the countries with the greatest growth in rail travel are those with the most liberalised markets.
	As with the proposals I have already discussed, we will need to ensure that we continue to engage on the detail, including by ensuring that any changes to public passenger transport services regulation are compatible with the specific needs of our network and give us the flexibility to deliver a sustainable franchise programme. I know that the Transport Committee’s report is concerned that our arrangements for letting train franchises should not be challenged, and I assure hon. Members that the Government share that view and are looking closely at the issue.
	On transport plans, we are concerned that the requirements are over-prescriptive and will therefore impose a significant regulatory burden.
	In relation to the channel tunnel, the focus of the Commission’s proposal is on achieving effective competition and further market opening for domestic passenger services, thereby increasing the quantity and improving the quality of passenger services. It is still too early to assess whether this will lead to more cross-border rail services through the channel tunnel.
	I will summarise our initial findings on the impacts of the package on the UK. The package may present significant market opportunities for UK firms wishing to expand their operations into the EU. However, the benefits for domestic rail transport are less obvious. We cannot see how a substantial proportion of the additional demand and cost savings identified by the European Commission in its impact assessment will translate to the domestic rail sector in the UK. This is because significant parts of the Commission proposal, including the competitive tendering aspects of the package, are already in place, and because in the UK we already have the benefits of vertical separation which avoids discrimination.
	I remain concerned about the Commission moving powers from national safety authorities to the European Railway Agency. The Government will need to be convinced that these powers are necessary, given the high level of co-operation already achieved between national safety authorities. We also do not want anything that interferes with the current UK rail structure or adds bureaucracy and costs, or any proposals that are not compatible with our plans for rail reform.

Andrew Percy: rose—

Simon Burns: I give way for the last time, before I allow other hon. Members to contribute.

Andrew Percy: I am pleased the Minister is talking about UK passengers. My constituents would be happy just to be able to get on the train to Doncaster. They are not necessarily bothered about being able to get a train to Berlin, so I am reassured by what he is saying. However, having listened to the debate, my knee has started to jerk a little. We seem to be hearing the usual European argument about how all this will be in the interests of the passenger, but is not the risk that this is
	just another area that we will cede to the European Union? We will be told that it is all about improvements for domestic passengers, and down the line we will find out in short time that we have given away yet another power over another area of domestic policy, which will not be in the interests of passengers.

Simon Burns: I think I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend. As he will know, because he has been listening avidly to my remarks, I have identified a number of areas where we are concerned or where we are seeking to forge a partnership with other members of the European Union to make changes for the better. But the assurance is that we are so far ahead of most of the European Union with our liberalised market that we are seeking to bring others up to our standards and offer the same opportunities as we have of a more liberalised rail service in other EU countries. I do not think it is a case of our being dragged to do something that we do not want to do, because in many areas we are already doing it. We want other people to follow our good example and get the benefit that we have had from a liberalised market with a good franchising process, where more people are using our railways, standards are improving and we are investing in enhancing it.
	On that happy note, I conclude by saying that I warmly welcome the opportunity that we have today to debate the document. I will listen with great care to the comments from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and I will fascinated to see whether she and her hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby to take note of this important document.

Lilian Greenwood: This is an important package of proposals and we must consider their consequences carefully. As the Minister acknowledged when he appeared before the Transport Committee and today, the Government are still considering their position on several matters of detail.
	A number of issues need to be looked at in the context of the UK rail industry. Given the recent success of the east coast main line and the collapse of the franchising system, we do not believe that it is necessary to move towards compulsory tendering of all passenger contracts. Within the wider package there are several proposals that we can support in principle, but reassurances are needed on a number of points.
	We broadly welcome moves towards standardisation which have the potential to deliver savings to UK companies. Part of that process is the move towards uniform European safety standards, and we need to look closely at how those changes would impact on the UK. We need to look at how the proposals would affect our cross-border links with France. The channel tunnel has not yet fulfilled its potential in either passenger or freight traffic, and the proposals in the package for greater co-operation between infrastructure managers, combined with a single certification authority, may improve services between Britain and the continent. It is therefore right to pursue standardisation which could reduce costs, and it is also important that where countries
	have chosen to put contracts out to tender, British companies should be able to compete on a level playing field.
	Previous packages have done much to remove the cross-border restrictions which hold rail back compared with other modes of transport, although as the Select Committee noted this week, some outstanding issues remain. There is still much to be done and the possibility of single certificates across the EU will be a boon to purchasers and manufacturers, who currently have to obtain approval from individual national regulators. However, there are also concerns, and we must make sure that any final agreement is in the national as well as the European interest.
	Crucially, the UK’s recent exemplary safety record must not be put at risk in a rush to achieve uniformity. Since Labour ended the failed Railtrack experiment and tackled the decades of under-investment in our infrastructure, the UK has established one of the best safety records in Europe. Much of the credit must go to the work of the Office of Rail Regulation, which since 2004 has helped to deliver a significant improvement in safety standards. Fatalities on the railways are now at an historic low, but under the fourth railway package the ORR’s safety and certification responsibilities will be transferred to the European Railway Agency. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that safety standards in the UK will not be weakened if the ORR’s responsibilities are transferred to the ERA? What discussions has he held with the Commission on this point? Will he give the House a full report on them today?

Ian Lavery: Is it not fair to say that the British railways system is one of the safest in the world? We are on the right track with health and safety. If the package goes ahead, that could be in doubt.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Since Network Rail took over, overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, safety has improved enormously. That is precisely why I am asking the Government to give us the assurances that we seek.
	As the Transport Committee noted, there is a
	“lack of clarity about how they”—
	the new standards—
	“would work in practice.”
	Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be a clear and simple division of responsibilities between the ORR and the ERA? What assessment has he made of whether there will have to be an increase in bureaucracy in order to enforce common standards across very different networks? The UK is currently leading Europe on safety, and our high standards must not be levelled down in order to reach a quick agreement.
	There is also a difficult balance to strike on competition. Of course, where countries have decided to put routes out to tender, British companies should be able to bid without fear or favour, but the fourth railway package would force competitive tendering on all passenger services. This has already provoked opposition in Europe, and we believe that there are good reasons for opposing it in the UK too. If approved, it could deny the UK the right to maintain a public sector comparator or intervene in cases of market failure, as happened on the east
	coast. Since 2009, the award-winning not-for-dividend operator has returned £640 million to the taxpayer, so it is worrying to see the Commission base its proposals explicitly on the UK experience.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is making an exceptional case. The Minister talked about competition on the railways. Does my hon. Friend surmise that if a private operator returned £640 million to the Exchequer, the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box to say that it was an exemplary operator that should be encouraged?

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Government’s claims—

Simon Burns: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lilian Greenwood: I will respond to the previous intervention first.
	The Government’s claims about the east coast main line’s performance have been blown out of the water by the Office of Rail Regulation’s recent financial report. East Coast has seen rising passenger satisfaction and been given a national award. It receives virtually no subsidy and makes the second highest contribution to the Treasury. The Government’s case for re-privatisation just does not stack up.

Simon Burns: The hon. Lady might want to reassure her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that the west coast main line has paid back even more money to the Treasury. In the light of what she has just said, perhaps she would like to explain her view of the comments of her right hon. and noble Friend Lord Adonis and her right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the east coast main line going back to franchising and out of public ownership.

Lilian Greenwood: The west coast main line, of course, enjoys the advantage of having had a major infrastructure and rolling stock upgrade, all funded by the taxpayer, and the east coast main line is due to have a large investment in infrastructure and rolling stock, also paid for by the taxpayer. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on the comments Lord Adonis made in last year’s “Rebuilding Rail” report. Some years after taking the east coast main line back into a not-for-dividend operator, he acknowledged that the current arrangements hold back our state operator.

Tom Harris: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that when the Government seek to put the east coast main line out for a new franchise, as they inevitably will, she will hold the Minister to account to ensure that whatever premium is paid by the new private operator will be at least the same as that which we are now receiving from the state-owned company, because anything less will surely be absolutely unacceptable to the taxpayer?

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, it is not just about the premium payments. At the moment, because the east coast main line is run by a not-for-dividend operator, not only is it making the premium payments to the Treasury, but the £40 million surplus has not been shared with private
	shareholders; every single penny has been reinvested in improving services. I think that is what UK taxpayers and passengers want.

Fabian Hamilton: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has just said, will my hon. Friend hold the Minister to account so that the Government ensure not only that the franchise delivers more to the Treasury than the directly operated railways are currently delivering, but that the franchise can afford to do so, because we remember the National Express fiasco?

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend has said exactly what needs to be said on the matter.
	The European Commission’s case for extending competition in that way can be found in a recently published non-paper, or document for discussion, on the UK railways. Actually, the term “non-paper” covers it rather well. It implies that privatisation was responsible for improving safety, but in fact the infrastructure sell-off had the opposite effect and subsequent investment in safety was taxpayer-funded. It also claims that privatisation itself was responsible for increasing passenger numbers, but other countries that did not fragment their systems also experienced comparable levels of passenger growth, as the Transport Committee acknowledged this week.
	Most remarkably, the non-paper suggests that privatisation has reduced subsidy. At the time, we were promised a more efficient railway, but subsidy rocketed. As the Office of Rail Regulation’s financial report last week confirmed, in 2011-12 train operating companies received more public funding than they paid back. They were paid £51 million more than they gave back in premium payments, while the Government paid almost £4 billion towards the cost of infrastructure.

David Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the subsidy has gone up by 300% since privatisation and, on top of that, fares have gone up by 22% in real terms, so the public are paying for the costs of privatisation? The really perverse thing is that a lot of the subsidy from British taxpayers and fare payers is actually going to the German, Dutch and French national Governments, because they own more than half the railways in this country.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely why the Opposition have been prepared to look at reforming the railways.
	In total, the train operating companies were left with £305 million before tax at a time when, as my hon. Friend has just said, some fares and season tickets have been allowed to rise by well above the rate of inflation. Those are the headline figures but, as the McNulty report, the Transport Committee and many others have pointed out, there is a basic lack of transparency in railway finances, as commercial confidentiality serves to obscure waste in the system.
	The waste is huge. The McNulty report identified an efficiency gap of 40%, compared with the railways of four other European countries. The fragmentation of the industry has led to massive interface costs between Network Rail, the operating companies and the supply chain. Taxpayers and fare payers are supporting replica bureaucracies and unnecessary legal challenges. That
	money could be better invested in the industry. The great railway sell-off was a botched, rushed job. Labour took action to reverse some of the most damaging legacies of privatisation, including the disaster that was Railtrack, but the Railways Act 1993 was hurried through Parliament for political reasons, creating inefficiencies that are still with us today.

William Cash: With regard to the interesting dialogue between the question of Europeanisation, nationalisation and privatisation, does the hon. Lady agree that the consequences of adopting a positive policy towards the underlying desire to Europeanise the system of railways are alien to what I assume to be the interests of the trade unions, whether in this country or elsewhere, because Europeanisation and the bureaucracy she has just referred to will ensure that it is inefficient?

Lilian Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but my concern is to protect the interests of passengers and taxpayers. That prompts the reasons for our response to the Government’s proposals today.
	Rather than reading the Commission’s non-paper, Members could watch the accompanying video—I wonder how much taxpayers’ money was spent producing it—which is very amusing. They could be forgiven for thinking that there is no real dispute at all, but buried in the impact assessment for compulsory tendering is the giveaway sentence:
	“There is a certain degree of uncertainty in the assessment of impacts of some options, as evidence is sometimes fairly recent (e.g. competition in the market) or ambiguous (evidence provided only by specific stakeholders). The choice to move forward with the aforementioned combination remains thus a political choice.”
	There we have it. The decision to impose one particular model on European states is a political choice, just as the Government’s decision to re-privatise the east coast main line was ideologically driven.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lilian Greenwood: I will make a little progress.
	Countries should be free to choose the models that best suit national and local needs. We had just such a need in 2009, after two franchisees walked away from the east coast main line. As a not-for-dividend operator, East Coast has gone from strength to strength. Overall passenger satisfaction has risen and the operator has won a national award for how it manages disruptions to services, with a 12% improvement in satisfaction ratings in the past year. It has provided a public sector comparator at a time when the Government’s franchising policy has collapsed, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £55 million. By the end of this year, it will have returned £800 million to the taxpayer and invested profits in the service.
	The not-for-dividend east coast main line is working, and with a five-year business plan in place the operator could deliver more, if it had the Government’s backing. However, by prioritising the privatisation of the east coast main line, the Government seem to be saying that the service works in practice, but not in theory. We need to proceed on the basis of the best evidence available and build on success stories such as the east coast main line, Merseyrail and London Overground.
	I am sure that the Minister will have listened closely to Transport for London’s concerns about the fourth railway package, particularly the definition of a competent authority. Interpreted literally, the definition of an authority that serves
	“the transport needs of an urban agglomeration or a rural district”
	could force TfL to divest itself of some services at a time when it is looking to take on additional responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister could offer reassurances on this issue, which may impact on other bodies, including the proposed rail in the north executive. The devolution agenda must not be put at risk by these proposals.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend will be aware of the current consultation on changing the rail network in London by extending the London Overground network to take in some of the suburban services run by other agencies. I am unclear about the effect that this European proposal will have on that. London Overground, after all, is one of the most popular and successful rail networks in the country and its expansion would certainly be welcomed by many people in London.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank my hon. Friend, and that is the precise concern that I am raising on behalf of TfL. As he says, London Overground is a successful operation and we would not want to see this package stand in the way of TfL continuing to develop services for the benefit of passengers and taxpayers.
	There are a number of concerns, therefore, about a number of points in the fourth railway package. We need to reach a deal that works for the British railway industry—a deal that removes the uncertainty over safety and devolution, while allowing us the option of replicating the success of the east coast main line, which should not be re-privatised, as the Government plan. The fourth railway package is not there yet, and that is why we cannot support this motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. My word, there are more speakers than expected. I am going to have to introduce a limit of five minutes and it may even have to go down. The opening speech lasted 33 minutes, so that has affected the debate a little. I call Iain Stewart.

Iain Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
	I will first pick up on the fascinating comments made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I wonder whether we are witnessing the embryonic development of a Labour policy of whole-scale renationalisation of train operators. I have only five minutes, so I cannot pursue that much further. I imagine that the proposal finds a lot of favour with the hon. Lady’s Back-Bench colleagues and, indeed, trade union sponsors, but that is a matter for another day.

Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is ideologically bizarre, in that they seem to oppose
	public ownership of the railways by British people or the British Government, but have no objection at all to public ownership of British railways by foreign Governments?

Iain Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to some of the proposals in the EU package that I think will help British operators to expand into Europe, if they so wish.
	I broadly welcome the package of measures. It takes Europe in a direction that we have already taken, so its broad thrust will not have a dramatic effect on rail operators in this country.
	I want to pick up on a few specific concerns. There is an issue about how the rest of Europe will respond and I am concerned about how effective the European Union will be in implementing the package in other countries. The Transport Committee’s evidence sessions made it clear that it will be very difficult to apply the package to all EU member states, because of the different sizes and structures of their respective railway systems. Past experience shows that the proposals are so opaque in practice that national Governments can implement them as they wish so as to protect their own national operators. I asked Brian Simpson, the Labour MEP who chairs the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee, whether there was lobbying from France and Germany to protect their national interests. He replied: “You bet there was.” I am, therefore, concerned about how the proposals will be implemented in Europe.
	The Committee has recommended—I think this would help—that the maximum limit for the bundling together of rail network services should be one fifth instead of one third. On the evolution of services in Germany, while urban and regional services are diversifying, allowing different operators to enter the market, the entire intercity network, with only two exceptions, is operated by Deutsche Bahn. Therefore, a contract covering one third of the national network would allow Deutsche Bahn a near monopoly of the intercity services, which goes against the principle of the directive. I hope that in his discussions with colleagues in Europe, the Minister will pursue an upper limit of one fifth of the market, rather than one third.
	The Minister has already referred to one of my domestic concerns, namely that the package should not prohibit the alliance between Network Rail and some of the train operating companies, particularly South West Trains. I believe that that is an effective way forward for the railways and I hope that the Minister will be able to get some clarification on it and protection for those British interests.
	I am also concerned about international services. For obvious reasons, the impact on British railways has not been significant thus far, but High Speed 2 and its connection to High Speed 1 and the tunnel will lead to many more international services from this country. I do not want our interests to be inhibited by problems relating to track access or safety, which is what happened when Eurostar tried to buy Siemens trains for the tunnel. The existing regulations are not as effective as they could be. I hope we can get much greater clarity and certainty on both those areas, in order to allow the development of effective cross-border services from this country. The Minister has said that he is looking at
	whether the issue can be dealt with through a European-wide arrangement or through greater collaboration between national agencies. I do not have a particular preference, but the overall objective should be to give operators greater certainty so that they can plan services.
	I am running out of time, so I will conclude by saying that I broadly support the thrust of the package, but hope that the Government will be successful in getting the assurances and clarifications needed to protect our interests.

Louise Ellman: I begin by apologising that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate, because I have to lead a transport debate in Westminster Hall that starts at 1.30 pm. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss some of the findings of the Transport Committee’s inquiry into the European fourth railway package.
	The Commission justifies its proposals by talking about “stagnation or decline” in European railways. Of course, there is no such thing in this country. Our railways are enjoying an unprecedented period of growth. It is highly debatable whether that growth is due to privatisation or the growth in our GDP over the same period. It is worth recognising that there has also been major expansion in Germany and France, where major national rail operators run the rail services. It is therefore not justified to say automatically that our success in increasing passenger numbers is due to privatisation.
	The Select Committee raises a number of concerns about the package, one of which relates to the proposal to separate infrastructure management and service operation. That thread runs through the whole package. It is ironic that against the background of our success, the Government are trying to bring the operators and the infrastructure holders closer together. That is being done in a number of ways, including through the development of partnerships between the national rail network and the transport operators and through what is prescribed in the new rail franchises. It is important that the European package does not prevent the working together that this country is trying to develop.
	It is also important that that division does not apply to light rail services, where management of the services and ownership of the network are combined, as in the case of the docklands light railway. Those services are extremely successful and they must not be jeopardised.
	Before the package was published, it was thought that it would require the complete separation of infrastructure ownership and service operation, but that is not the case. The package says that there can still be a holding company, as there is in some other European countries, that owns both the network and the train operation. However, it says that there must be strict Chinese walls to separate the two.
	A major concern of the Committee is that the regulations on how much of the rail service of any one country an organisation can hold will restrict the opportunities for UK companies to bid for overseas business in the way that the European companies that run large sectors of our rail industry have done here.
	In the short amount of time left, I would like to mention the omissions that the Committee is concerned about. There is a need to encourage cross-border services
	for both freight and passengers. Track access charges are an extremely important issue. We were told repeatedly that high access charges are impeding the development of cross-border services. There seems to be no recognition of that in the Commission’s package. Border control is another area that requires attention, but to which no attention was paid in the Commission’s rail package.
	Those are the Committee’s key concerns with regard to the expansion of our rail services. We made other points too, but I have only had a limited time in which to speak. We are also concerned about the omissions. I listened to the Minister’s comments at the beginning of the debate. I am confident that he will take our points forward and I hope he will ensure that they are considered fully in the discussions in Europe before the package is finalised.

William Cash: First, I am glad that the Minister ruled out the connection between HS2 and this Europeanisation of the railway packages.
	The European Scrutiny Committee asked for a three-hour debate on this matter. The Minister and the Opposition spokesman took up the best part of an hour, so we are down to five-minute speeches, but I will do my best.
	What we need in our railway system is interaction, not integration. Obviously, we have to have compatible gauges because there has to be interaction between our country and the continent. I am very much in favour of trading and political co-operation in Europe, but I object to the Europeanisation of the railways on the one hand and their nationalisation on the other. That analogy, which was given by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), is very apt because there is no difference between the two.
	The intention of the package is to create a single railway market and to reduce the barriers that are hindering the development of a single EU railway area. That has all the elements of centralisation and the creation of a monopoly in legislative terms. The effect will be to centralise power and reduce the extraordinary necessity for competition, on which the Minister put so much emphasis. Of course, we all want competition. We need the kind of competition that was created, albeit some time ago, in the mid 19th century. My family founded the London to Brighton railway and the Leeds to Thirsk railway, among others. In fact, my ancestor, William Cash, was chairman of the committee of inquiry into George Hudson, the crooked MP who created the monopoly of the railway system. There was a special inquiry into his behaviour and he was eventually driven out. I believe that Europe is probably moving towards the kind of monopoly that had to be unravelled in the United Kingdom.
	I am deeply concerned about competition in relation to contracts. We remember the Bombardier fiasco, which affected British jobs. The French and Germans are very good at getting into our systems, but we are not allowed into theirs. We saw what happened with Siemens and Alstom. I have some knowledge of how that worked in practice, being a former Member for Stafford, but we do not have time to go into the details. The reality is that these matters affect British jobs. I remember discussing
	all this with Arnold Weinstock, who was so much in favour of the great venture of Europeanising GEC. I said, “Get the message: you will find that it doesn’t work in the way that you are hoping.” At the end of his life, he had a word with me and said, “You were right after all.” He had found that the system was very unfair and that other countries exploited it. We must have regard to our own national interests.
	I am extremely worried about the direction of the railway package. I will go further and say that the Labour party should be worried as well. I would be interested to know what Mr Bob Crow thinks about it. Perhaps we will hear about that in a minute. Although I do not favour trade union control or nationalisation, I do believe in our national interest. Despite the fact that this is only a communication as yet, we know the direction in which it is going and I am not happy about it. The Labour party is doing the wrong thing because it is allowing this to happen. Although it is voting against it today, it will not really resist it for practical purposes. I am afraid that the Government are going to allow a system that will create a centralised monopoly in Europe.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and the chair of the ASLEF group, so in a sense I have an interest in the railways.
	The core intention of the fourth railway package is simply to visit the mistakes made in Britain on the rest of the EU. Railway privatisation in the UK is a laboratory experiment that was designed in the EU. It has been an expensive failure which continental Governments would be foolish to imitate. Separating trains from track and privatising train companies to set up liberalised and allegedly competitive rail operations has been massively expensive to taxpayers and passengers. We have the highest fares in Europe and we know all about the taxpayer subsidies. Sir Roy McNulty’s report clearly demonstrated that in concluding that UK railways were up to 40% more expensive to operate than state-owned and integrated railways on the continent.
	Some five years ago I had the pleasure of visiting Germany with the Rail Freight Group, and we met Dr Mehdorn, chairman of the German state railways, Deutsche Bahn. He was visibly angry and banged the table with his fist at the prospect of DB being privatised, especially on the “British model,” as he called it, of separating track from trains. The fourth railway package brings that outcome closer. Separating track from train operators has been a serious mistake, and significantly in the UK we have been making moves in the opposite direction towards vertical integration. The fourth railway package will force continental railways to go in the opposite direction and disintegrate—a big mistake.
	On the same visit to Germany I met a British transport economist who had been a supporter of the UK privatisation model—a computer model—which apparently told him that such a system would reduce costs and produce efficiency. It had the opposite effect, as McNulty clearly demonstrated. My economist chum confessed to me—rather feebly—that his computer model had failed. I suggested that the logical answer was to renationalise and reintegrate Britain’s railways, to which he had no answer.
	Why on earth is the EU pressing ahead with this package? It must simply be ideology, dogma, and serving the interests of those who make money out of privatisation. Incredibly, as we have heard, more than 50% of UK franchises are now operated, or part operated, by European state railways. When English, Welsh and Scottish Railway was taken over by DB Schenker I said, “You’ve been nationalised.” It said, “No we haven’t,” and I said, “Yes. You’ve been nationalised and taken over by the German Government.” It had been a private company in this country.
	Are UK railways simply being exploited for profit to the advantage of continental Governments and their taxpayers? The same is happening in the energy sector with companies such as EDF. What nonsense is that? What happens if the fourth package proceeds? It is time to junk this model of railway operations, stop the fourth package, and return to sensible, integrated, publicly owned railways, especially in the UK.
	There are, of course, good reasons for international co-operation to promote cross-border travel, but that can be done most easily by nationalised railways negotiating at international and national level. We do not need fragmented private companies trying to do that. As we know, rail travel is growing—I have been a commuter on Thameslink and its predecessors for 40 or 45 years—but it is growing in spite of privatisation, not because of it, and essentially because travelling to work on the roads is becoming more and more difficult. With the growth of the economy, particularly in London, more and more people are commuting.
	Railways are wonderful things and the mode of the future, but they need state involvement and state running to make them work properly on behalf of us all, and to make them more efficient. We want to cut railway costs, and the way to do that is to bring them back into public ownership.

Alan Reid: The fourth railway package is the latest effort by the European Commission to reform a European rail sector still dominated by state-owned railway businesses that control both tracks and trains. Most national domestic markets in Europe are largely closed—other than the UK, only Sweden has opened its rail markets. Because the UK already has an open market, it is unlikely that infrastructure separation proposals will have a significant impact in this country. However, the package offers new opportunities for UK operators to enter other European markets with the same ease that European operators have found when trying to enter the UK market. I understand that the package would not affect metro and light rail operations. That makes sense, and I hope the Minister will confirm that today.
	I would like to raise a couple of concerns. First, the Commission is proposing to remove the existing exemption that allows the direct award of contracts that do not exceed 10 years. I believe that the 10-year period could be reduced, but there must still be a shorter exemption period to allow for the occasional need to extend rail public service contracts or combine them in a different manner. Even with our competitive tendering arrangements, the Government used that exemption following the cancellation of the competition for the inter-city west coast franchises. Furthermore, temporary arrangements
	for the east coast main line service, which has operated in the public sector since 2009, would no longer be allowed. We need an exemption that allows for temporary operation backed by the public sector.
	My second concern is the proposal to centralise powers that currently rest with national safety authorities with the European Railway Agency, as that seems to conflict with the subsidiarity principle. The move from a two-certificate system to the issuing of one safety certificate makes sense, as do proposals to standardise administrative measures across all European Union agencies. I do not, however, see the need to shift responsibility for issuing those safety certificates from national safety agencies to the European Railway Agency—NSAs will be far better able to appreciate circumstances in their own countries than the ERA. I hope that those issues can be satisfactorily resolved, and I support the Government’s aims as laid down in the motion.

Fabian Hamilton: Before I begin my brief comments—I will keep them brief as we are running out of time—may I say I find it astonishing that over the past three years when the Government have sought to blame somebody for their appallingly failed financial and economic policy, they have blamed the previous Labour Government and not their own policies, yet when they want to take credit for investment in the railways that must have been made at least three years ago under the previous Government, they take credit for that? Such things cannot be done that quickly.
	I have a couple of brief points that relate, believe it or not, to the east coast. I have used the east coast main line for the past 16 years to come to London and return to my Leeds North East constituency, and we have seen many changes during that period. Great North Eastern Railway operated that line as a private company extremely well, and led the field. Unfortunately, however, its parent company went into liquidation and the franchise was taken over by the disastrous National Express experiment. When that failed, it had to hand the franchise back to the Government because it could not keep up with the payments it had promised—that is why I made my earlier intervention. I hope the Minister will ensure that if the line is franchised, the franchisee can afford to pay the money it promised.
	Since Directly Operated Railways has been running the east coast, it has been a superb service and I thank its staff and management for running that service so efficiently, excellently and profitably. We have heard time and again this afternoon that £640 million has been returned to the Treasury over three years, and it is estimated there will be at least another £160 million in the current financial year. Contrary to what the Minister said, my understanding is that Virgin Rail has returned just £200 million net to the Treasury in 15 years. How does it make sense to say that it will be more profitable and better for the public sector and the Treasury to return the east coast line to private hands for private profit to be paid out to shareholders? Will that improve the service? I would say no. It seems ideological and defies common sense.
	Last year I believe that the Government, through Network Rail, gave £172 million to rail operators to compensate passengers for delayed or cancelled trains.
	East Coast trains paid £6.6 million of that, not because it was the worst performer but because it was the most honest. The average paid by the other companies was just £400,000. What have they done with that money? Why has that money not been paid back, and why have people not been encouraged to claim in the honest and decent way practised by East Coast? My final question to the Minister—I do not suppose he will have much time to respond—is will he please think again about refranchising the east coast line? If it is not broken, do not try and repair it.

Sheila Gilmore: There is actually something slightly surreal about this debate. So often in this Chamber we hear diatribes from Government Members about how Europe is trying to tell us what to do and interfering in how we do things. We now seem to have a situation in which the Government and many—although not quite all—Back Benchers who have spoken, seem to be happy for us to impose on countries in Europe our view of how railways should be run.
	I raised this issue earlier today and perhaps the Minister will answer this time. It seems slightly odd that the McNulty report—which has been mentioned particularly by Conservative Back-Benchers—said that the cost of running the railways seems to be much higher in Britain than in European countries that have a higher degree of state rail operations. If that is the case, why do we suggest that our system is so much better?
	In any event, why does Europe have to impose a one-size-fits-all proposal? Why not allow national Governments to have the choice? We are not necessarily arguing that countries must choose to run all their railways publicly. Apart from anything else, a comparator is extremely useful. In politics, we do not often get a chance to see different ways of doing things at the same time, in similar economic circumstances. A comparator allows us to say that one thing works and that another does not.
	The five years since East Coast was set up by Directly Operated Railways to run the service have been helpful in that regard. We have learned a considerable amount. The Minister is fond of telling us, as he has today, what Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said five years ago, but we must learn from what happens. The Secretary of State said earlier today that we must base our decisions on evidence. We now have evidence. In the light of the evidence, it is right to say that we perhaps want to do things in a different way. That is not unreasonable, especially for a Government who have turned semi-circles and circles and done U-turns in a shorter time than five years—they turned on the pasty tax and the caravan tax within months. It is reasonable, after five years, to say that any EU country should be able to choose to have directly operated services. They might want both directly operated services as well as franchises. Why not have both?
	East Coast is making an important contribution to our environmental ambitions by making the service more attractive, particularly to people in Scotland, who have the alternative of flying—they are not a captive market. East Coast has made the service more attractive
	by extending services. It has an early morning service—a fast runner—and an evening service that enables people to get back after a late meeting. It offers a service to business customers and those who are able to take advantage of the first class service. Because of that, they might say, “I’m going to take the train rather than fly.” That is very important environmentally.

John McDonnell: When we have such debates, it is important that we consult the people who run the railway system. I therefore refer hon. Members to the evidence provided to the Select Committee on Transport by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. When privatisation came about, RMT submitted evidence to the House and made it clear publicly that privatisation would result in a risk to safety. Eventually, Southall, Paddington and Potters Bar happened. I attended the funeral of the driver who died at Southall—he was an ASLEF member and my constituent. I remember the warnings that were given. As a result of privatisation, people such as that driver sacrificed their lives.
	This time, RMT is saying clearly that the proposals, if they go ahead, will compromise safety. RMT is saying that the system is fragmented and complicated with numerous interfaces, and that the measure will simply introduce another tier of bureaucracy for it to deal with. Its view is that safety should be dealt with at national level and local level, where there is local knowledge. Yes, interfaces in Europe should be dealt with internationally by agreements within Europe, but safety should rest as a national competence. In that way, we can achieve safety on the basis of the knowledge of those who operate the system.
	The second point made by RMT is on infrastructure. It clearly says that there is a move—the measure is a further step—towards a single European infrastructure manager. The House has debated High Speed 2. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that key decisions on infrastructure should be retained at national level. Of course, we need integrated decision making when we go across national boundaries, but basic infrastructure decisions should be based on local knowledge and the representation of local interests, and particularly local constituency interests. The measure will take us beyond that.
	RMT’s third point is that rail is effectively a money laundering exercise. This is not petty nationalism, but we see an incremental nationalisation of our railway system by Deutsche Bahn and others. The taxpayer subsidy poured into the system is laundered into investment in those companies’ own countries. Why do I say that? Let me quote the German Transport Ministry. It said:
	“We’re skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn and ensuring that it is anchored in our budget—that way we can make sure it is invested in the rail network here”.
	The laundering of the British pound into German euros is a deep irony, and it is happening as a result of the UK Government’s proposals to support elements in the package.

Frank Dobson: Perhaps we should have a referendum.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend says that we should have a referendum, but we will come back to that in due course.
	The objection is about democracy. The measure will fetter the hands of a future Labour Government, who will be unable to renationalise the railway network or keep some element of it in public ownership. That is what the measure is about, and why Government Members support it. They want to ensure that no Labour Government can at any time in future bring rail back into public ownership.
	A number of us prefer public ownership and have made the arguments time and again. Public ownership is more efficient, more effective and more cost-effective. If hon. Members disagree with that, I suggest they read a succession of Transport Committee reports from the past few years. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House. Whatever they think about rail nationalisation, they should not allow Europe to fetter the hands of a British Government on such a major issue. This is about democracy, and about ensuring that, when we go into the next election, we have the right to implement what is in our party manifestos. If the measure progresses, it will fetter the hands of future Governments, and therefore undermine British democracy when it comes to deciding the future of our transport system.

Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to make a few points in the very few moments left to me. As a member of the RMT group, I commend its important evidence to the Transport Committee.
	The Minister can never miss an opportunity to have a go at British Rail—[Interruption.] There is no need for him to intervene yet. He should recall a couple of things. British Rail ran the system from 1948 until privatisation in the 1990s. During that time, there was a great deal of electrification, innovative engineering and scientific research. At the same time, the system was grossly underfunded. British Rail was always denied the funds it needed for infrastructure investment—it was always short of what it needed.
	We privatised the railway system, and now spend more on subsidising train operating companies, which make considerable profits out of the system. We are spending more on the system so that we do not control it. Fares are among the highest in Europe, and we have the most expensive and diverse railway system.
	I agree with the Minister that, for example, Virgin Trains runs a very good service on the west coast main line. I have travelled on Virgin trains and all the services at various times. The service is very good. I pay tribute to those who work on the trains and run the system—they do it very well with great difficulty. However, the Minister should not run away with the idea that Virgin Trains or any other company has done well because of its investment in the system. Who paid for the west coast electrification? We did. Who is paying for the electrification of the western region? We are.
	The system is that we pump public money in for private companies to cream off very large profits. I am a strong supporter of the principle of the railway system and what it can achieve. Railways are the thing of the future. They are efficient and more environmentally sustainable than road traffic. The construction of railways
	has much less environmental impact. I understand the complaints about the route HS2 will take and the impact it will have in various places. I urge those who are concerned, next time they go on the west coast main line, to look at the section of the line that runs parallel to the M1 just south of Rugby. They should look at the land space taken up by the railways, and the number of people and freight travelling on that section of track, and compare it to the environmental impact of the M1, and of the widening of the M1 or any other motorway. The argument for railways is overwhelming.
	The document is not a short, easy read, and these are just some of the papers associated with this subject. What it is, is a proposal for the privatisation of the whole railway system across Europe. We do not need that. As many colleagues have said, integration can work within the existing framework. Yes, we need common safety standards. Yes, we need trains running directly from Spain bringing agricultural produce to this country, just as we need trains running directly from Russia and many other countries. That can all be achieved. Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU, has no problems integrating its services with Germany, France and Italy, and I do not think that any other country should have any problems either.
	What we have is the worst of all worlds. The public are expected to pay for infrastructure and Network Rail has massive debts because of its investment in the system. I do not complain—
	One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
	The House divided:

Ayes 217, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 5855/13, a Commission Communication: The Fourth Railway Package—completing the single European railway area to foster European competitiveness and growth, No. 6012/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Regulation on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No. 881/2004, No. 6013/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (Recast), No. 6014/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Draft Directive on railway safety (Recast), No. 6017/13, a Commission Report on the progress made towards achieving interoperability of the rail system, No 6019/13, a Commission Report on the profile and tasks of other train crew members, No. 5960/13 and Addenda 1 to 5, a Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 concerning the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail, No. 5985/13 and Addenda 1 to 7, a Draft Directive amending Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area, as regards the opening of the market for domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure, and No. 6020/13, a Commission report on the implementation of the provisions of Directive 2007/58/EC on the opening of the market of international rail passenger transport accompanying the Communication on the fourth railway package; supports the Government’s aim of ensuring any resulting measures are appropriate, encourage competition and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU; and further supports the Government’s view that any such measures should be evidence-based, proportionate and reduce or at least minimise the regulatory, administrative and cost burden for industry.

Banks and Banking

Sajid Javid: I beg to move,
	That the draft Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 26 March, be approved.
	The draft order makes changes to the cash ratio deposits scheme, which is how the Bank of England funds its monetary policy and financial stability functions, which in turn benefit sterling deposit takers. Under the Bank of England Act 1998, banks and building societies of a certain size are required to place a proportion of their eligible deposits in a non-interest-bearing account in the Bank of England, which then invests these deposits in interest-bearing assets—specifically gilts—and the return it makes funds its monetary policy and financial stability functions, which benefit the whole of the banking sector, as well as the wider public.
	The Government continue to believe that the cash ratio deposit scheme is the right way to fund the Bank’s important policy work. The operation of the scheme means that the Bank’s income is subject to two drivers: first, the gilt rate, and secondly the size of deposits eligible for the scheme, which is largely driven by the performance of the banking sector as a whole. Over the last five-year period, both these drivers have been lower than expected, which has caused a shortfall in the Bank’s funding. The Government are seeking to address this shortfall by recalibrating the parameters of the cash ratio deposit scheme to current economic conditions.More specifically, the order increases the proportion of deposits that eligible financial institutions are required to deposit at the Bank from 0.11% to 0.18% and increases the total amount of deposits that they have to hold to be eligible for the scheme from £500 million to £600 million. Alongside the Bank’s efficiency savings, these changes aim to ensure that its income covers the costs of its policy functions over the next five-year period.
	The Bank is also playing its own part. It is committed to bearing down on costs. In particular, it will seek efficiency savings by establishing a shared corporate services model with the Prudential Regulation Authority. The Bank’s budget for the next five-year period takes these savings into account. The Bank also has opportunities to make further efficiency savings. These potential savings have not yet been incorporated into the Bank’s budget, so are likely to reduce the Bank’s running costs even further over the next five-year period. The Treasury will review the Bank’s progress in achieving these savings once the shared corporate services model with the PRA has been established. As part of the review, the Treasury will consider whether there are implications for the Bank’s funding requirements, and in turn for the cash ratio scheme.
	Alongside that, and to ensure that the Bank’s important monetary policy and financial stability work continue to be fully funded, the Government have consulted on the changes to the parameters of the cash ratio scheme. It is these changes that are before us today. They are expected to increase the Bank’s income over the next
	five years to ensure that it is more closely aligned to the Bank’s costs. The amount that most institutions are required to deposit at the Bank under the scheme is small. In December 2012, 86% of deposits were made by just 20 institutions, with eight each contributing more than £50 million. The large majority of contributions are clearly from larger banks and building societies. Under the new parameters, some financial institutions will need to hold higher deposits with the Bank, but again it will be the larger banks and building societies that are most affected. In fact, 14 smaller institutions—mostly building societies—will be removed from the scheme altogether.
	The Bank of England Act 1998 sets out that the cash ratio deposit rate can only be changed once every six months. The deadline for changing the rate for the next six months is 3 June 2013. If the agreement is not implemented by this date, the shortfall in the Bank of England’s funding will continue, which will be a further detriment to the dividend that the Bank pays to the Exchequer. The change is a sensible one that ensures that the Bank’s important monetary and financial stability functions are fully funded. The Bank of England is playing its part by making efficiencies in its operating costs, and this change ensures that banks and building societies that benefit from the Bank’s policy functions play their part. For that reason, I commend the measure to the House.

Christopher Leslie: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this issue on the Floor of the House. The last review—I believe they take place roughly every five years—was in 2008, as part of the changes introduced by the 1998 reforms. We feel that this is a reasonable way of funding the Bank’s policy work, and requiring clearing banks to deposit a proportion of their sterling deposits with the Bank of England to then allow the reinvestment of those, yielding returns of—I am told—roughly around £130 million to pay for administrative and research overheads, seems sensible. As those investment returns have underperformed, what was a Bank of England surplus in 2008 became a deficit recently, and we understand the need to revisit this. We understand the need for the Bank of England to cover its costs; after all, it is not as if it can manufacture money out of thin air. Oh no—actually it can manufacture money out of thin air, but that is another story.
	There are two principal issues on which I would like to focus, the first of which is that the order begs the question about the Bank of England’s running costs generally and whether its budget is necessary and justified. The Minister helpfully talked about some of its plans in terms of efficiency savings. It is regrettable that the Bank’s forecasts for economic growth have gone somewhat awry, and they have not necessarily improved in recent years. No doubt the Bank will account for itself on quite why things have gone wrong. Before the financial crisis, the Monetary Policy Committee on average underestimated growth by 0.5%; since the crisis, the Committee has started to overestimate growth by 2%. Obviously, this difficult situation has led to criticisms from David Blanchflower and others, most specifically about the calibre of the forecasting arrangements.
	We have also seen problems with the Bank’s development of new approaches to encourage lending to small businesses by the mainstream banks. That has required several iterations, which have not necessarily been successful. There is also the difficulties that the Bank has had in meeting its inflation target, with the Governor having to write to the Chancellor on nine occasions since 2010 because of the missed targets. We know that the Bank of England will have significantly higher costs and that the new Governor of the Bank will have a much larger remuneration package than is currently the case.
	The order begs a second question about the impact on the economy if the banks are required to deposit extra sums with the Bank of England, which is why I have a couple of specific questions that I hope the Minister will address. What is the total of sequestered deposits at present, and what it would be under the new 0.18 ratio? Is it roughly £3 billion at present, going up to about £4.5 billion? If an extra billion is sequestered by the Bank of England, what will be the impact on bank balance sheets? I think he said that building societies were likely to be exempt from this measure, but I would be grateful if he clarified that. He will understand that we are concerned about the impact that this might have on the bank levy, which is calculated on bank balance sheet liabilities. If there are changes to balance sheet arrangements as a result of this measure, will that have an impact on Exchequer revenue?
	Lastly, is there any anxiety about removing flexibility from mainstream banks that might otherwise have chosen to support lending to businesses, which these sequestered deposits might inhibit? We understand the need for the change, and this has been a useful opportunity to take stock, but we also seek assurances about any impact that these changes might have on banks and building societies and the wider economy.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the order. He asked some good questions, which I will attempt to answer.
	First, he referred to the use of the increased revenue by the Bank of England and to increasing costs of the Bank. There are three main points. First, the Bank is playing its part in making efficiencies by sharing corporate services with the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is a demonstration that the Government expect the Bank not just to ask for more revenue to cover its costs but to try to find better ways to generate value for money.
	Secondly, in real terms—even after this change—the budget of the Bank of England will be around the same as what it was in 2000-01, so it has not seen a large increase in spending when compared with many Government Departments. The Bank is taking on new responsibilities and its functions have changed over the last decade or so. It is trying to accomplish all of that with a budget, through the cash deposit ratio scheme, similar in real terms to what it was in 2000-01.
	Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, the Bank of England’s responsibilities have changed, especially since the financial crisis. The Bank has had to run numerous schemes and to do a lot more work in terms of financial stability, including new schemes such as the
	funding for lending scheme and others. I hope that he recognises—I think he does—that the Bank of England needs to cover the costs of these additional schemes.
	In terms of the deposits that are affected, we estimate—this is an estimate from December 2012; the estimates will be updated, and I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not easy to have the exact number—that about 86% of all sterling deposits in the UK are eligible. That is made up of about 20 institutions, eight of which contribute more than £50 million; the largest banks, naturally, make the biggest contribution.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about some institutions being exempt; it was not quite that. As we have raised the bar—the eligibility requirement in the order—from £500 million to £600 million, some smaller deposit-making institutions will now be excluded from the scheme. Rather than being exempt, they are, technically, excluded from the scheme if their deposits are less than £600 million. My understanding is that almost all of those 14 smaller institutions are smaller local building societies, which I think is welcome, as it reduces a cost—albeit a small one —for smaller institutions that support local communities.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had done any assessment of the economic impact. The Treasury has not done so specifically, because even once the change is taken into account, our view is that there would be a negligible impact as the Bank will not receive a significant increase in revenue from these operations. As he will know, many of the banks concerned would in any case have deposits with the Bank of England beyond the scheme, as part of their capital reserves, so there is no reason to think that the change would make a big difference to their reserve management programmes or would therefore necessarily have an impact on their lending programmes.
	With that, I hope I have satisfactorily responded to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I again welcome his support for the order.
	Question put and agreed to.

Notices of Questions

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
	That, in respect of Questions to the Secretary of State for Wales for oral answer on Wednesday 15 May in the next Session of Parliament, paragraph (5)(a) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments) shall apply with the substitution of three days for four days.
	Regular participants in oral questions to the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that the deadline for submitting questions and for their printing and circulation is normally Tuesday for questions on Wednesday of the following week. This recognises Standing Order No. 22 (5)(a), which specifies at least four days, excluding Friday, Saturday and Sunday, between circulation of questions and their subsequent answering where they relate to the territorial Departments and the Attorney-General. The motion before the House is necessary, given the imminent Prorogation, and replaces the normal Standing Order requirement of four days with three days, thereby providing for questions to be circulated on the first day that Parliament returns, Wednesday 8 May, for answering the following Wednesday, 15 May. I commend the motion to the House.

Thomas Docherty: I will not detain the House for very long—obviously we are approaching the Prorogation. We very much welcome the spirit in which the Government have sensibly approached this issue, but as we are proroguing this afternoon, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can confirm that, given the breaking news on Leveson, the Government will set out their response at the first opportunity when we come back after the Gracious Speech.

Tom Brake: The House will of course have opportunities in the new Session to debate those issues.
	Question put and agreed to.

PETITIONS

School Uniform Supply Regulations

Seema Malhotra: I present a petition on behalf of more than 250 residents in Feltham who have signed this or the original petition on similar lines to express their concerns about school uniform supply regulations. I particularly acknowledge the efforts of Mr David Howell MBE and Mrs Rani Kalsi in the campaign.
	As someone who grew up in a shop that sold school uniforms, among other clothing and crafts, I know that buying a school uniform is a big milestone for a child joining a new school. However, residents have told me about the stress it can cause, particularly with more than one child at different schools, and especially for those without access to a car to travel distances of even two to three miles to buy a school uniform. Residents have talked about the benefit of being able to buy from local suppliers in the community who know the schools
	and local families. The petition seeks to encourage opportunities for local enterprises to become suppliers of local school uniforms to school specifications, through an open tendering process.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make amendments to school uniform supply regulations to allow opportunities for local enterprise suppliers.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of Feltham and Heston,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that Central Government should amend regulations in regard to school academy’s powers to make decisions on appointing school uniform suppliers without formally opening tendering opportunities to local enterprise suppliers and believe that the London Borough of Hounslow should formally join this application for amendment.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make amendments to school uniform supply regulations to allow opportunities for local enterprise suppliers.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001174]

Objections to Incinerator for Huntington (South Staffordshire)

Gavin Williamson: I, like many of my constituents, vehemently oppose the proposal for a biomass and anaerobic digester facility to be built in Huntington.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of a resident in the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioner objects to planning permission for a renewable energy facility on Cocksparrow Lane, Huntington, which has the potential to devalue surrounding properties and businesses; further that a renewable energy facility could cause problems like smell pollution and noise pollution and could cause increased traffic congestion in the area; further notes that this
	could cause increased risk to Littleton Primary School foot traffic, due to increased large vehicular traffic, and could have a negative effect on local business and trade, be detrimental for local wildlife and become an eyesore within the local natural green belt.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that their objections to this planning application are noted by Staffordshire County Council.
	And the Petitioner remains, etc.
	[P001175]

Dawn Primarolo: The sitting is suspended. Shortly before the sitting resumes, Mr Speaker will order the Division bells to be sounded. For the convenience of the House, it is anticipated that this will be shortly before 3.15 pm.
	Sitting suspended (Order, 22 April).

MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
	The Speaker, with the House, went up to hear Her Majesty’s Commission; on their return, the Speaker sat in the Clerk’s place at the Table.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Justice and Security Act 2013
	Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013
	Succession to the Crown Act 2013
	Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Act 2013
	Crime and Courts Act 2013
	Marine Navigation Act 2013
	Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
	Public Service Pensions Act 2013
	Defamation Act 2013
	Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013

Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech

Mr Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty’s Command. For greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, and also directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Journal of this House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
	The Speech was as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.: My Ministers' first priority has been to reduce the deficit and restore economic stability. In pursuance of this aim legislation has been enacted to establish a new framework for financial regulation in the United Kingdom.
	Legislation has been passed to encourage long term growth and to simplify regulation. Provision has been made for a Green Investment Bank and to reform employment tribunals.
	Legislation has been enacted tocreate a growth incentive for councils by enabling them to retain income from business rates and to provide a framework for the local administration of support for council tax.
	My Government has increased support to business and is expanding or opening diplomatic missions where commercial opportunities are greatest.
	My Government has promoted investment in infrastructure. Legislation was enacted to authorise expenditure for a scheme to provide financial support for key infrastructure projects, as was legislation aimed at promoting economic growth and encouraging new infrastructure projects.
	Legislation was passed to modernise the regulatory framework for civil aviation in the United Kingdom and to charge large heavy goods vehicles using the road network. For operators registered in the United Kingdom, the new charge will be offset by reductions to Vehicle Excise Duty.
	Measures have been passed to establish an independent adjudicator to ensure supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers.
	In recognition of the valuable work carried out by charitable organisations, legislation was passed to reduce burdens on charities, enabling them to claim additional payments on small donations.
	With regard to the justice system, legislation was enacted to establish the National Crime Agency to tackle serious organised crime and to strengthen border security. Measures were also enacted to reform the courts to increase efficiency, transparency and judicial diversity.
	My Government attaches the highest importance to ensuring the security of the nation and upholding the rule of law. Measures have been passed to strengthen oversight of the security and intelligence agencies. This legislation included provision to allow courts, through the limited use of closed proceedings, to hear a greater range of evidence in national security cases.
	Legislation was also enacted to protect freedom of speech and reform the law of defamation to ensure that a fairer balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation.
	Reform of the public services continues to be a priority for my Ministers. Legislation has been enacted to reform public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the independent commission on this matter.
	My Government worked in co-operation with their counterparts in the 15 other Commonwealth Realms and legislation has been passed in the United Kingdom to reform the rules governing the succession to the Crown.
	Legislation was also enacted to introduce individual registration of electors and improve the administration of elections.
	In this Session of Parliament, my Ministers have also endeavoured to publish draft legislation in order that it may be scrutinised by Parliament prior to the formal legislative process.
	My Ministers have continued to work to foster a strong working relationship with the devolved administrations.
	My Government has promoted global security, supporting efforts to achieve a political solution in Syria; helping French and African forces in Mali; and promoting Afghan peace and reconciliation efforts.
	Several measures have been passed in relation to the European Union, including legislation relating to the financial stability mechanism within the euro area and on the accession of Croatia to the European Union.
	My Government has given a commitment to invest nought point seven per cent of national income on official development assistance.
	In the year of the Diamond Jubilee we were pleased to attend celebrations in all parts of the United Kingdom. I was touched by the great kindness shown in this country and throughout the Commonwealth. The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased that members of the Royal Family were able to mark the Jubilee year by undertaking a series of visits to many Commonwealth countries and British Overseas Territories where they were welcomed so warmly.
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were delighted to greet so many visiting Heads of State and Government during the Olympic and Paralympic Games hosted in London.
	We were also glad to welcome His Highness the Emir of Kuwait and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Indonesia on their visits to the United Kingdom.

Members of the House of Commons: I thank you for the provisions which you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

PROROGATION

Mr Speaker: The Commission was also for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
	“My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
	By virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the eighth day of this May to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the eighth day of May.”
	End of the Second Session (opened on 18 May 2010) of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Sixty-Second Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.